Gasco Goodhue St-Germain

A dynamic team sustained by 35 years
of experience and service

The firm’s dynamic team is sustained by the experience
of its members and the specific knowledge required
from a litigation boutique firm having a sophisticated
and bilingual clientele in the Insurance and
Business Risk Management industries.

arc
Brochures Gasco
Read more
CanadianLawyer

Our firm

The law firm of Gasco Goodhue St-Germain was founded in 1977 and operates from offices located in downtown Montreal. It is comprised of fifteen (15) lawyers who constitute an experienced, dynamic and knowledgeable team.

Well known and respected throughout the insurance industry, the firm has, in addition to its large general insurance practice, teams specializing in, amongst others, coverage, class actions, professional liability, civil liability, sports liability, municipal liability, libel and slander, inland marine insurance, environmental liability, D&O, E&O, construction, surety bonds, boiler and machinery, business interruption, transport, product liability, personal injury, property damage, accident, health, life and disability insurance as well as subrogation recoveries.

The lawyers of Gasco Goodhue St-Germain, with their extensive experience in negotiation, alternative dispute resolution and litigation, service the needs of their clientele throughout the Province of Quebec. The experience and expertise of the lawyers ensure that firm clients capitalize on the individual strengths and backgrounds of each of the various members. Work is delegated among lawyers, paralegals and support staff to achieve the most cost effective solution to a problem.

Read more

Our bilingual lawyers have appeared before all levels of Courts as well as various Administrative Tribunals.

The firm culture dictates that whether the matter in issue is simple or complex, our lawyers are readily available and offer personalized service while constantly maintaining a high level of professionalism that meets the needs of the ever evolving business and legal environment.

Go back to start

History

Gasco Goodhue St-Germain was founded in 1977 and celebrated, this year, its 35 years of service to its broad-based clientele!

Since its creation, our firm has strived relentlessly to deserve the respect of its business partners and clients. In fact, the long-standing partnerships that Gasco Goodhue St-Germain has established and maintained, throughout the years, have ensured the loyalty of its clients. In so doing, Gasco Goodhue St-Germain has added to its experiences and knowledge thanks to a clientele that it cherishes.

The firm’s dynamic team has also sought to benefit from the experiences and knowledge developed throughout the years with a view to ensuring a personalized and highly professional service to its clientele faced with a commercial reality that is constantly evolving.

Our approach

Gasco Goodhue St-Germain is a litigation boutique law firm having its offices in Montréal, Québec.

Our team encompasses experienced and dynamic lawyers that offer a complete array of legal services to various players in the Insurance and Business Risk Management industries.

Being perfectly bilingual, our lawyers plead cases, in demand and defence, before all Quebec Courts. Hence, Gasco Goodhue St-Germain is in a position to respond to all the needs of its regional, national and international clientele.

Always keeping in mind the specific needs of its clientele, Gasco Goodhue St-Germain has created an internal structure corresponding to their demands and requirements. In effect, with a view to handling and solving litigation matters on an economical and efficient basis, the work is dispatched judiciously among the firm’s lawyers on the basis of the level of knowledge required for each step in the handling of each individual file. Our clients thus benefit from the firm’s philosophy of pooling all of the talents, knowledge, contacts and experiences of its lawyers.

Read more

Furthermore, due to the constant evolution of commercial and legal realities, Gasco Goodhue St-Germain has combined its experience with new technologies, thus allowing an optimization of the efficiency of its legal services to the benefit of its clientele. In effect, it is essential at Gasco Goodhue St-Germain to always seek to better the services and, therefore, to attain the best possible resolution wished by its clientele, notably a resolution that corresponds to their business needs.

Having for an objective to always meeting its clients’ needs, Gasco Goodhue St Germain is an active member of national and international affiliations.

On a national standpoint, our firm is a member of the ARC Group Canada, which is an affiliation of independent law firms throughout Canada specializing in the Insurance and Business Risk Management industries. Gasco Goodhue St-Germain has, therefore, access to affiliated law firms in the Canadian Provinces and Territories. The ARC Group Canada has its administrative offices at 48, Yonge Street, suite 200, Toronto, Ontario.

Read more

On an international standpoint, Gasco Goodhue St-Germain is affiliated with the Insuralex Global Insurance Lawyers Group, which is also an affiliation of independent law firms specializing in the Insurance and Business Risk Management industries. Insuralex encompasses law firms throughout Europe, the Middle East, the United States and South America. Its administrative offices are located at the core of the Lloyd’s Building at 12, Leadenhall Street, London, England.

Go back to start

Practice areas

While Gasco Goodhue St-Germain is specialized in all matters related to Insurance Law and Business Risk Management in general, the members of our firm all have their individual experiences and specific practice areas.

The practice areas and individual experiences of the firm members are, therefore, shared to the benefit of the entire team as well as its clients. In effect, it is this diversity in the experience and practice areas that constitute the strength of our firm as a whole and allows us to distinguish ourselves from the competition.

The practice areas of the firm are more particularly the following:

  • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
  • Business law
  • Class actions
  • Commercial litigation
  • Construction liability
  • Environmental liability
  • General civil liability
  • Insurance law
  • Insurance coverage
  • Labour law
  • Liability of directors and officers
  • Liability in sports
  • Municipal liability
  • Personal injury litigation
  • Product liability
  • Professional liability
  • Real estate law
  • Recoveries
  • Surety law
  • Transportation law

Judgments

  • 2013
    • 19-11-2013 Baribeau vs. Les Entreprises Roofmart Ltée
    • Close

      19-11-2013 Baribeau vs. Les Entreprises Roofmart Ltée

      Pursuant to the Contestation filed before the Labour Commission, and at the start of the hearing on the merits of this complaint, Alexandre Janin was able to obtain the dismissal of said claim, which was unfounded both in fact and in law.

    • 15-04-2013 Les Entreprises Roofmart Ltée vs. David Martineau and Martin Larouche
    • Close

      15-04-2013 Les Entreprises Roofmart Ltée vs. David Martineau and Martin Larouche

      In the context of legal proceedings filed in recovery of amounts owed pursuant to a suretyship, Alexandre Janin was successful in obtaining, to the benefit of his client, a judgement for the amount of $158,000.00. In this matter, many issues related to suretyships were at issue and analyzed by the Court, notably the benefits of discussion and division, solidarity between sureties, the duty to inform and the scope of the suretyship.

    • 18-02-2013 Tembec Industries Inc. vs. AIG Commercial Insurance Company of Canada
    • Close

      18-02-2013 Tembec Industries Inc. vs. AIG Commercial Insurance Company of Canada

      Mr. Justice Luc Lefebvre of the Superior Court dismissed an action brought by an insured against its excess liability insurer for reimbursement of the amount of $3,520,883.15 that it had to pay with its own funds to settle legal actions brought against it in United States by American companies. In the matter of Tembec Industries Inc. v. AIG Commercial Insurance Company of Canada (2013 QCCS 592), Tembec had made a voluntary recall of its products which contained melamine. Several American companies thereafter instituted actions in damages with respect to this recall, including punitive damages, the latter being excluded under Tembec’s primary and excess policies. The total amount of these law suits exceeded the limits of the primary liability policy. Both the primary liability insurer and AIG, the excess liability insurer (represented by Ronald W. Silverson and Amélie Thériault), invoked, among others, exclusions concerning the recall of products. During voluntary mediation sessions in Colorado, the primary liability insurer of Tembec undertook to pay the limits under its policy to settle the various American lawsuits. AIG accepted to contribute to the settlements of these actions but for amounts which were below what was being sought by the complainants. Unsatisfied with this situation, Tembec settled the actions with its own funds and thereafter sued AIG for reimbursement, alleging, among other grounds, its duty to settle the claims in the best interests of its insured and the absence of good faith on the part of AIG. Moreover, Tembec alleged that the amounts that it had to pay to settle the lawsuits were reasonable in the circumstances. The Court held that AIG acted in good faith. According to the trial judge, the fact that Tembec was exposed to significant non-covered risks certainly did not oblige AIG to pay for these non-covered risks, or that it had to increase its settlement offer to an amount over and above what it considered reasonable in order to convince the third party to renounce to claims which were not covered under its policy, such as punitive damages. The judgment was appealed by Tembec.

  • 2012
    • 23-10-2012 Brown et al. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters and al.
    • Close

      23-10-2012 Brown et al. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters and al.

      Mr. Justice Michel Déziel of the Superior Court granted a Motion to Dismiss presented by Liberty International Underwriters Canada (represented by Ronald W. Silverson) in the case of Brown et al. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters et al. (2012 QCCS 5231). Liberty had been sued in its capacity as professional liability insurer of a securities broker who would have acted fraudulently in respect of certain investors. The coverage provided under the policy issued by Liberty was subject to the condition precedent that the claim be “first made against the insured and reported to the insurer during the policy period”. The Plaintiffs’ “ Motion for Permission to Institute a Class Action” did not allege that condition had been met. In the absence of such an allegation, the Motion was dismissed before the hearing on certification. In addition, the Court rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that non-compliance with that condition precedent could not be urged against a third party such as the Plaintiffs because it contravened art. 2502 C.C.Q. which provides that a liability insurer cannot invoke facts which occur after the loss to deny coverage to a third party. The judgment was not appealed.

    • 04-07-2012 ACE-INA Insurance and Nexans Canada Inc. vs. Clarke Transport Inc. vs. Lazer Transport Inc. and Markell Compagnie d’assurance du Canada
    • Close

      04-07-2012 ACE-INA Insurance and Nexans Canada Inc. vs. Clarke Transport Inc. vs. Lazer Transport Inc. and Markell Compagnie d’assurance du Canada

      One of the more contentious trucking cargo liability issues in the Province of Quebec over the last number of years has been the defence of armed robbery hijackings. Traditionally, in the Province of Quebec, Courts have been reticent to apply this defence which is the force majeure defence when there has been an element of fault on the part of the driver. Therefore, the transporters would often be found liable. In this case, the shipper Nexans had put into place very strict rules, one of which was calling in on a regular basis to the dispatch. These rules were not all followed and the truck was hijacked, but the Court held that their breach was not causal and that the theft could, therefore, not have been avoided. The action was dismissed against the transporter Clarke Transport, which was represented by Michael Goodhue.

  • 2011
    • 31-03-2011 Bourkas et Lazaris v. Gidal Construction Inc. and Bureau de la publicité des droits de la circonscription foncière de Montréal
    • Close

      31-03-2011 Bourkas et Lazaris v. Gidal Construction Inc. and Bureau de la publicité des droits de la circonscription foncière de Montréal

      Me Alexandre Janin was able to obtain the radiation of a legal hypothec inscribed without right on his clients' residence in the context of a construction recourse.

      Furthermore, in doing so, he obtained for his clients a monetary compensation for said inscription of a construction legal hypothec that was inscribed illegally and without right.

    • 24-02-2011 Promutuel Portneuf-Champlain, Société mutuelle d'assurance générale v. Venmar Ventilation Inc. and Fasco Industries Inc.
    • Close

      24-02-2011 Promutuel Portneuf-Champlain, Société mutuelle d'assurance générale v. Venmar Ventilation Inc. and Fasco Industries Inc.

      In the context of his usual mandates to represent manufacturers, Attorney Alexandre Janin successfully obtained a judgment confirming a certain jurisprudence to the effect that an expert report must be filed before the defendants are compelled to answer.

      More precisely, the Honourable Jacques Babin of the Superior Court rendered a judgement compelling plaintiff to file its expert report since such an expert report was required to meet its burden of proof and thus such proof would ultimately be filed into the court record.

      As mentioned above, this decision confirms the right of a defendant, such as a manufacturer, to receive copy of an expert report detailing the product's alleged defect before being compelled to begin its judicial investigation in order to file its defence.

  • 2010
    • 26-10-2010 AVIATION/LIABILITY OF TENANT FOR FIRE DAMAGES/BURDEN OF PROOF
    • Close

      26-10-2010 AVIATION/LIABILITY OF TENANT FOR FIRE DAMAGES/BURDEN OF PROOF

      On October 26, 2010, the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by the Defendants Northwest Airlines and its liability insurer from a judgment rendered in December 2008 by the Superior Court condemning the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiffs, the property insurers of Montreal's Trudeau International Airport as well as a neighboring tenant of Northwest Airlines, Air Canada, and its property insurer, damages in the amount of $835,538.00 caused by a fire which originated in the premises leased by Northwest Airlines in the Airport office building.

      The Plaintiffs (represented by Ronald W. Silverson and Pierre-Etienne Lucier) alleged that the fire was caused by a cigarette discarded by an employee of Northwest Airlines in a waste paper basket shortly before she left the office. She was the only person working in the office on the morning of the fire. Smoking was prohibited in the building and the premises. The employee admitted to having smoked several cigarettes in the office but testified that the last cigarette had been fully extinguished and she had not thrown the butt into the basket. The fire was detected approximately 20 minutes after the employee had left the office and locked the door.

      Plaintiffs' expert excluded arson and an electrical defect and concluded that a smoker's article was the probable cause. Defendants' expert, who, unlike Plaintiff's expert, had never visited the scene of the fire, stated that the cause of the fire was unknown and that an electrical defect could not be excluded as a possible cause of the fire. However, in cross-examination, the Defendants' expert conceded that if arson and an electrical defect were excluded, a possible cause was a fire in the basket.

      Mr. Justice Jean-Pierre Senécal of the Superior Court held in first instance that, where there is no direct proof of the cause of a fire, it can be established by presumptions of fact if such are serious, specific and consistent. The Plaintiffs had the burden of proving the probable cause and not just a possible cause or the most likely of several possible causes. The cause of the fire can also be established by the elimination process, such that when other possible causes are eliminated and there remains only one possible cause, the latter constitutes the probable cause. He held that there were serious, specific and consistent presumptions that the fire started in the basket and that the cause was a smoker's article. Moreover, the elimination process excluded any other cause well beyond the balance of probabilities.

      While the Judge stated that he had no doubt that the employee testified in good faith, it was not necessary in his view to conclude that she lied to arrive at the conclusion that the fire was caused by her cigarette.

      The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed no manifest and determinative error which justified the reversal of the judgment.

    • 26-08-2010 Bombardier Produits Récréatifs c. Les Entreprises G.Y.C. et Les Services d’Assurances Transcan et Kingsway Compagnie d’Assurances Générales
    • Close

      26-08-2010 Bombardier Produits Récréatifs c. Les Entreprises G.Y.C. et Les Services d’Assurances Transcan et Kingsway Compagnie d’Assurances Générales

      Transportation: Plaintiff Bombardier Produits Récréatifs instituted an Action against the Defendants claiming the value of a shipment of seadoos stolen in transit.

      Me Carmine Iovino successfully pleaded that Bombardier Produits Récréatifs did not have the legal interest to sue since it had sold the recreational vehicles to a third party on the basis of an F.O.B. sale at the time of shipment. The Quebec Court of Appeal overturned an earlier judgment condemning Kingsway to pay $151,820.85.

    • 23-06-2010 Huot c. Camping Lac des Cyprès 1998 inc.
    • Close

      23-06-2010 Huot c. Camping Lac des Cyprès 1998 inc.

      Attorney Alexandre Janin has successfully defended an important claim for bodily injury in the context of an accident that occurred in a family camping area. More precisely, Plaintiff was claiming against the camping in issue damages following the alleged faulty surveillance of a lifeguard. Plaintiff alleged that the fault of the lifeguard is what caused his injuries whilst using a waterslide.

      The Honourable Justice Yves Tardif of the Superior Court for the district of St-François rather decided that there was no causal link between any such alleged fault of the camping in issue and the damages claimed by Plaintiff. The camping was therefore entirely exonerated of the claim presented by Plaintiff in this matter.

    • 17-03-2010 Compagnie canadienne d'assurances générales Lombard c. Davignon
    • Close

      17-03-2010 Compagnie canadienne d'assurances générales Lombard c. Davignon

      The Court of Québec rendered a judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs, represented by Andrée-Ann Robert, against the tenant of a condo unit, following a water damage in the condo unit of Lombard's insured. The owner of the condo unit had testified that the water damage did not come from her unit, neighbouring the unit of Lombard's insured. The Court instead ruled that the prejudice suffered by the Plaintiffs had its origin in a water leak in the hot water tank of the condo rented by the Defendant, Victor Simeone. The Court granted damages as well as all costs, including the costs of the seizure conducted against the Defendant before the latter presented a motion in revocation of a judgment.

  • 2009
    • 29-10-2009 Manoir Richelieu et Kevin Coutts c. Lloyd's et Schecter
    • Close

      29-10-2009 Manoir Richelieu et Kevin Coutts c. Lloyd's et Schecter

      Coverage: The Quebec Court of Appeal Judges Beauregard, Rochette and Kasirer essentially confirmed the decision rendered by Judge LaRosa of the Superior Court on November 5, 2007 (see below). In this case, which concerned a horseback riding accident, Lloyd’s, represented by Me Philippe Lelarge had successfully invoked an exclusion in its CGL policy concerning the use by or for the Insured of a vehicle or aircraft. The Court of Appeal maintained the validity of the exclusion and commented on the duty to defend and on the defence costs in Appeal. Full text of the judgment.

    • 20-04-2009 Leland Industries v. Sovereign General Insurance Co.
    • Close

      20-04-2009 Leland Industries v. Sovereign General Insurance Co.

      Coverage/ false representation/ reduction of indemnity: In this matter, Sovereign (represented by Me Philippe Lelarge) insured eight buildings owned by Leland across Canada and the United States in virtue of a “blanket” type policy. Following a fire in one of the buildings, the Insurer discovered that the building was not used only for the storage of parts, as stated by the Insured, but also for manufacturing. If the Insurer had known that fact, it was established that it would have charged 40% more by way of premiums for that building. Applying Article 2411 C.C.Q., the indemnity was thus reduced to 71.14% (i.e., 1/1 + 0.40) of the amount claimed. The Insured, dissatisfied with the settlement, sued the Insurer, alleging that the aforementioned calculation should not have been done on the specific premium for the building which was damaged but rather on the total premium for all of the buildings owned by Leland given that it was a “blanket” policy. The ratio between the excess premium and the total premium would have been significantly different from the one for the specific premium for the building and would have resulted in a payment of an indemnity of approximately 98.5% of the loss, a difference of almost $200,000.00. This question had never been dealt with Quebec law. The Honourable Mr. Justice Michel Déziel dismissed the action of Leland on the ground that the word “blanket” did not add anything except a maximum limit. As the Insured’s Broker received a working document indicating the respective premiums for all the risks covered by the contract, the Insured was presumed to have been aware of this information. For the Court this was not a contract with a single premium and the Insured’s argument was unfounded. Full text of the judgment

    • 15-04-2009 Iman Nosseir v. Vacances Transat Holidays Inc. and Sea Pro Divers S.A. and Occidental Grant Punta Cana Hotel
    • Close

      15-04-2009 Iman Nosseir v. Vacances Transat Holidays Inc. and Sea Pro Divers S.A. and Occidental Grant Punta Cana Hotel

      Motion to Dismiss / international jurisdiction of Quebec Courts: On April 15, 2009, the Honourable Mr. Justice Gilles Hébert maintained a Motion to Dismiss presented by the Defendant Sea Pro Divers S.A. (represented by Me Pierre-Étienne Lucier) on the basis of absence of jurisdiction of Quebec Courts. Iman Nosseir sued Sea Pro Divers S.A. as well as the other Defendants following an accident which occurred on a beach in the Dominican Republic. The Plaintiff alleged that she was hit a motor boat owned by Sea Pro Divers S.A. and that she suffered serious injuries. She claimed $203,596.91. The Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Dominican Republic and in Quebec. Sea Pro Divers S.A., which was sued on the basis of its extra-contractual liability, was neither domiciled nor resident in Quebec and did not carry on business in Quebec. The Plaintiff relied on Article 3148 (3) of the Civil Code of Quebec which states that the Quebec Courts have jurisdiction where damage was suffered in Quebec. Iman Nosseir claimed to have suffered damages in Quebec since she was hospitalized there and suffered the consequences of her accident in Quebec. After a detailed study of the jurisprudence, Judge Hébert accepted the arguments pleaded by Me Pierre-Étienne Lucier and granted the Motion to Dismiss the action. Mr. Justice Hébert concluded that had he accepted the argument of the Plaintiff, that would have had the effect of granting to any Quebec citizen the right to sue in Quebec for bodily injuries suffered anywhere in the world.

    • 12-03-2009 AXA Assurances Inc. et al c. Plomberie Bourque et Fournier, Gary Oswald et Compagnie Canadienne D'Assurances Générales Lombard
    • Close

      12-03-2009 Royal & SunAlliance du Canada Société d’Aassurances vs. Markel Compagnie d’Assurance du Canada and Transport QUIK-X

      Transportation:: On March 12, 2009, the Québec Court of Appeal dealt with several appeals in a trucking cargo claim governed by Québec law. The Court of Appeal analysed the method of calculation of the value of a load. Michael Goodhue acted on behalf of Markel compagnie d’assurance du Canada and Transport Quik-X Inc.

    • 30-01-2009 AXA Assurances Inc. et al. v. Plomberie Bourque et Fournier, Gary Oswald and Compagnie Canadienne d'Assurances Générales Lombard
    • Close

      30-01-2009 AXA Assurances Inc. et al. v. Plomberie Bourque et Fournier, Gary Oswald and Compagnie Canadienne d'Assurances Générales Lombard

      Builders' risk insurance policy/Subcontractor as unnamed insured:By judgment dated January 30, 2009 in the above matter, Mr. Justice Martin Castonguay of the Superior Court for the District of Montreal dismissed a subrogation action brought against the Defendants (represented by Ronald W. Silverson) pursuant to a Builders' Risk insurance policy on the ground that the Defendant plumbing subcontractor and its employee were "unnamed insureds" under the AXA policy and therefore no subrogation recourse could be brought against them nor their liability insurer Lombard, even if the damages to a construction project were caused by the negligence of that subcontractor. The Declarations page of the Policy designated only the general contractor/promoter Beau Design as the "Named Insured". There was no "Additional Insureds" provision in the Policy. The "property insured" clause covered property of others to the extent that its value was included in the limits of the Policy. The contract between Beau Design and Plomberie Bourque et Fournier provided that Beau Design was to maintain insurance on the property of the subcontractor until the contract price was paid in full. The Plaintiffs argued that there was no proof of any intent to have the subcontractor covered under the AXA Policy. The Court applied the case law that holds that given the nature and purposes of a Builders' Risk policy subcontractors are to be considered "unnamed Insureds" by "necessary implication". It also held that the general contractor's obligation to take out insurance covering the unpaid property of the subcontractor resulted in the latter becoming an "unnamed insured".

  • 2008
    • 18-12-2008 CGU Compagnie d'Assurance et al. c. Gilles Malo Inc. c. Toitures Mauriciennes (1982) Inc. et al.
    • Close

      18-12-2008 CGU Compagnie d'Assurance et al. c. Gilles Malo Inc. c. Toitures Mauriciennes (1982) Inc. et al.

      Construction: Dans cette affaire, les demanderesses en subrogation poursuivaient le constructeur Gilles Malo Inc pour $ 750 000 suite à l'effondrement du toit du bâtiment de leur assurée survenu en mars 1997. Malo avait exécuté en 1982 des travaux d'agrandissement sur le bâtiment existant construit en 1972 et utilisant des fermes de toit produites par Toitures Mauriciennes (1982) Inc. La partie demanderesse reprochait à Malo de ne pas s'être assuré en 1982 que le bâtiment de 1972 pourrait recevoir l'agrandissement en question. Malo à son tour, a poursuivi en garantie Toitures Mauriciennes (représentée par Philippe Lelarge) et un autre sous-contracteur qui a fourni la charpente métallique. L'action principale a été rejetée par l'Honorable Juge Claudette Picard au motif que aucun lien continu n'avait été installé par l'assurée des demanderesses sur les fermes de toit en 1972, contrairement aux règles de l'art . Les actions en garantie ont donc été aussi rejetées.

    • 09-04-2008 Delgado v. Canada Post Corporation v. Services d’Entretien Distinction Inc.
    • Close

      09-04-2008 Delgado v. Canada Post Corporation v. Services d’Entretien Distinction Inc.

      Work place accident / Motion to Dismiss: Delgado, while in the employ of Service d’Entretien Distinction (“Distinction”), was seriously injured while he was working in a building belonging to Canada Post Corporation (“CPC”). Having been indemnified by the CSST, he sued CPC for the excess of his claim, namely, more than $1,000,000. CPC then sued Distinction (represented by Me Philippe Lelarge)) in warranty on the grounds that it did not properly train Delgado. A Motion to Dismiss was presented on the grounds that CPC could not do indirectly what Delgado could not do directly, namely, sue his employer Distinction. The Motion was granted by Judge Claudine Roy who was of the view that according to a consistent jurisprudence, in the absence of a contractual provision specifically dealing with an obligation to indemnify, CPC had no recourse against Distinction. She thus dismissed the action. CPC desisted from its Appeal in December 2009. Full text

    • 03-07-2008 Temple Insurance Company v.Construction APS 2000 Inc.
    • Close

      03-07-2008 Temple Insurance Company v.Construction APS 2000 Inc.

      Builders' risk/Subrogation: In an oral judgment rendered from the bench on July 3, 2008, Mr. Justice William Fraiberg of the Quebec Superior Court dismissed an action taken by Temple Insurance Company ("Temple") against Construction APS 2000 Inc. ("APS"), a subcontractor, and the latter's liability insurer, Lombard of Canada , both represented by Ronald W. Silverson, in respect of damages which occurrred during a renovation project at a hospital in Trois-Rivières' Quebec. Temple had issued separate builders' risk policies for two phases (known as Lot 3A and Lot 3B) of the project. Under each of the two policies the subcontractors, including APS, were "additional insureds". There was an express renunciation of subrogation clause in both policies. While performing work under its Lot 3B subcontract, APS allegedly improperly relocated a water pipe which eventually disconnected and caused flooding damage to property covered under the Lot 3A builders' risk policy. Work under the Lot 3A contract had not then been completed. After indemnifying its insured under the policy issued for the Lot 3A contract, Temple instituted an action against APS and Lombard and asserted that it was subrogated against APS, nothwithstanding that it was an additional insured under both of Temple's policies, because the alleged fault was committed during the Lot 3B contract and not the Lot 3A contract.APS and Lombard contended that 1) as a matter of recognized insurance principles, Temple could not be subrogated against its own insured APS, regardless of where the alleged fault occurred; 2) there was an express renunciation set forth in the policies in favour of all parties insured thereunder; and 3) in its contract with the hospital the general contractor had undertaken to provide insurance coverage in favour of the subcontractors.That undertaking constituted a waiver of subrogation against those subcontractors which was opposable to Temple.The parties agreed to submit the subrogation issue to the Court prior to trial by way of a joint "Motion for a Decision upon a Question of Law" pursuant to art. 448 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Justice Fraiberg maintained the aforementioned arguments of the Defendants and noted that APS benefitted from the express waiver of subrogation regardless of wherever its fault occurred, even one committed off of the insured site.

    • 18-04-2008 Centre de Ski Mont-Rigaud v. Clifford Wood
    • Close

      18-04-2008 Centre de Ski Mont-Rigaud v. Clifford Wood

      Sports liability: On April 18, 2008, the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Judges Otis, Pelletier and Bich) unanimously maintained the Appeal from a judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Brian Riordan of the Superior Court for the District of Beauharnois. Mr. Justice Riordan had granted the action brought by the Respondent Wood against the Centre de Ski Mont-Rigaud (represented by P.Claude Laporte) following an injury suffered when he hit the post of a fence which sectioned off the ski hill area.

      The Court of Appeal commented firstly that “the sport of alpine skiing or snowboarding is properly considered to be an activity having inherent risks” and added that “consequently, skiers and snowboarders must assume the existence of these risks before undertaking the practice of their sport”. The Court specified that sportsmen accept only those risks which are foreseeable, reasonable and inherent to the activity and not unreasonable or abnormal risk having no connection with the practice of their sport.

      With respect to the distinction made by the Judge of first instance between natural obstacles (snow, cross-trails or tree-lines) and “artificial” obstacles such as those installed by a ski hill such as poles for a fence, the Court of Appeal noted that the Mountain Code of Conduct, which must be respected by all skiers, does not make any distinction between nature or artificial obstacles and that “the vigilance of skiers and snowboarders must always be ever present, regardless of the nature of the obstacles that are confronted”. On this point, the Court concluded that the obstacle in the form of a fence which the Plaintiff hit was within the criteria of normality and foreseeability and that the artificial nature of the obstacle was not relevant.

      With respect to the duty imposed on the ski centre by the Judge of first instance to take reasonable measures to avoid that the layout of the fence not constitute a cause of an accident, the Court of Appeal held that the Judge went too far in concluding that the centre should have padded the poles of the fence to limit the consequences of an accident by the users of the ski trails. The Court of Appeal stated that the only legal obligation for ski centres under the “Regulation respecting passenger ropeways” is to protect the sharp or protruding parts of the pylons when they are situated in an area where skiers circulate, the general obligation of ski centres only being to post warnings of the presence of certain objects on the trails.

    • 06-02-2008 De Melo v. Souscripteurs du Lloyd’s et le Bureau provincial d’expertise en sinistres Inc.
    • Close

      06-02-2008 De Melo v. Souscripteurs du Lloyd’s et le Bureau provincial d’expertise en sinistres Inc.

      Insurance coverage / evaluation of the indemnity. The Plaintiffs/Insureds invoked the benefit of a replacement value endorsement. In fact, a fire led to the total loss of their building. Having received the replacement cost from Lloyd’s, the Plaintiffs/Insureds invoked the fact that they should also have received the benefit of the replacement value endorsement which was equivalent to the total amount of the coverage for their insured building. On the other hand, Alexandre Janin , representing Lloyd’s, successfully pleaded that the conditions for the application of this endorsement had not been respected. More particularly, while the Plaintiffs/Insureds had to reconstruct in order to benefit from it, they preferred to sell the land without any reconstruction whatsoever. The Superior Court judgment sided with Lloyd’s by deciding that the replacement value endorsement is only applicable through the interpretation of its terms and conditions. Since the endorsement was judged to be clear and unambiguous, the Superior Court confirmed the condition to the effect that it would only find application if the Plaintiffs/Insureds reconstructed their building. The Plaintiffs’/Insureds’ action was thus dismissed with costs.

    • 05-02-2008 Nick Vernacchia v. Provigo Distribution Inc.
    • Close

      05-02-2008 Nick Vernacchia v. Provigo Distribution Inc.

      Liability/bodily injuries: Plaintiff Nick Vernacchia instituted legal proceedings for an amount of $333,000.00 against Provigo Distribution Inc. following a fall in one of its supermarkets.

      Following proceedings which lasted more than eight years, a judgment was rendered, dismissing all liability on the part of Provigo Distribution Inc.

      Upholding the arguments pleaded by Jean-François Germain, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had failed to prove a fault on the part of Defendant as well as a damage connected to the alleged fall.

  • 2007
    • 27-11-2007 Axa Assurances v. Regulvar Inc and Lombard du Canada
    • Close

      27-11-2007 Axa Assurances v. Regulvar Inc and Lombard du Canada

      Subrogation/unnamed insured: AXA Assurances Inc.and its insured, Construction de la Croisette Inc., the general contractor for renovation work to the municipal library in Rosemère, Quebec, instituted an action against Regulvar Inc. and its liability insurer, Lombard Canada ( both represented by Ronald Silverson) , for fire damages allegedly caused by a defective triac manufactured by Regulvar and installed in the library. AXA purported to be subrogated in the rights of its insured, the general contractor, pursuant to an indemnity paid under a builders' risk insurance policy in which the only named insured was the Co-Plaintiff Construction de la Croisette Inc. The latter claimed the deductible it assumed under that policy.The Plaintiffs alleged that Regulvar was liable as the manufacturer of the purportedly defective product. Pursuant to an examination on discovery of the general contractor, it was revealed that 1) Regulvar was, in fact, a subcontractor of Construction de la Croisette for the project and not only supplied certain materials, including the triac in issue, but also installed them; and 2) under the terms of its construction contract with the Owner of the project, the general contractor had undertaken to subscribe to a builders' risk insurance policy covering the interests of, among others, the subcontractors. Neither of these circumstances were alleged by the Plaintiffs in the action. Mr. Justice Claude Larouche of the Quebec Superior Court maintained the Motion to Dismiss presented on behalf of Regulvar and Lombard under arts. 75.1 and 165.4 C.C.P., holding that, given the nature of the builders' risk policy, Regulvar was to be considered an unnamed insured under the policy and that consequently, AXA could not be subrogated against its own insured. Moreover, the undertaking by the general contractor to obtain an insurance policy covering the interests of its subcontractors constitutes a renunciation to pursue any recourse against the subcontractors for damages to the insured project, even those caused by the negligence of any subcontractor."

    • 05-11-2007 Schecter v. Manoir Richelieu and Kevin Coutts v. Lloyd’s
    • Close

      05-11-2007 Schecter v. Manoir Richelieu and Kevin Coutts v. Lloyd’s

      Coverage/sports liability : In this unusual case, Coutts provided horseback riding services to the Manoir Richelieu for its hotel clients and had obtained a liability insurance policy from Lloyd’s (represented by Philippe Lelarge) for its operations. In July 2002, the Plaintiff Schecter had reserved an outing of one hour with the hotel, without knowing that the services were to be provided by Coutts. She fell at the end of the session, and suffered severe back injuries. Her version was that her fall was due to a helicopter which had flown over the group at a low level, which frightened the horses. It so happened that the helicopter had been requisitioned by Coutts to look for a lost horse. Coutts claimed that the fall was caused rather by the inexperience and the lack of discipline of the Plaintiff and he also argued acceptance of risks. The Manoir Richelieu sued Lloyd’s in warranty and the latter invoked the standard “aircraft” exclusion to deny coverage.

      In her judgment, the Honourable Judge La Rosa concluded that the helicopter was the effective cause of the fall and condemned Coutts to indemnify the Plaintiff for more than $200,000.00. She also condemned the Manoir Richelieu on the grounds it had lead the Plaintiff to believe that it was the provider of the horseback riding services. However, the Court rejected the warranty action against Lloyd’s, the aircraft exclusion being clear and applicable in the circumstances, since even if Coutts was not piloting the aircraft, it was being used for his purposes.

    • 17-10-2007 9123-9947 QUÉBEC INC. V. FPC MULTI-TECH SERVICES INC.
    • Close

      17-10-2007 9123-9947 QUÉBEC INC. V. FPC MULTI-TECH SERVICES INC.

      Contractual liability: Plaintiff 9123-9947 Québec Inc. instituted proceedings against F.P.C. Multi-Tech Services (represented by Stéphanie Lalonde) claiming resolution of the lease of a photocopier leased by the Defendant as well as damages for loss of income. The Honourable Michelle Pauzé accepted the Defendant's position to the effect that the Defendant had leased a good which was, in all likelihood, free of any defect. The Court also granted the amount claimed in the Counterclaim which represented the monthly rental payments which were due by Plaintiff, the whole with costs.

    • 13-09-2007 Pauline Desgroseillers c. Richard Morand et l'Ordre du Barreau du Québec
    • Close

      13-09-2007 Pauline Desgroseillers c. Richard Morand et l'Ordre du Barreau du Québec

      Professionnal liability: Desgroseillers had taken an action for $ 650 000 against her former attorney Morand as well as its liabity insurer, both represented by Philippe lelarge. The trial judge dismissed the action on Feb. 14 2007, on the dubious grounds (not pleaded in defence !) that plaintiff could not simultaneously bring a civil and a disciplinary recourse against her lawyer. Knowing that this judgment was flawed, Morand and the Barreau, following the Appeal brought on by plaintiff, decided to file the entire transcripts of the trial, to show that the action should have been dismissed, though for different reasons. The Court of Appeal, as expected overturned the first instance judgment, but held that plaintiff had not proven the key elements of her action and therefore dismissed the action on those grounds.

    • 06-08-2007 Patrick Simard vs. Air Canada
    • Close

      06-08-2007 Patrick Simard vs. Air Canada

      Aviation Law : The Quebec Superior Court dismissed an Application to Certify a Class Action against Air Canada following the delay of a flight that sat on the tarmac for several hours. The Plaintiff was seeking damages for psychological injury, punitive and exemplary damages, inconvenience and delay. The Court held that since there were no bodily injuries, there was no right of action under both Articles 17 and 19 for damages of a psychological nature., The Court also dismissed the Class Action for damages directly related to delays stating that Class Action is not the appropriate proceeding basing itself on the rules of proportionality found in the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure. Air Canada was represented by Michael Goodhue and Catherine Chaput .

    • 29-05-2007 Paul-Émile Renaud c. Alain Leduc
    • Close

      29-05-2007 Paul-Émile Renaud c. Alain Leduc

      Responsabilité sportive: Le Dr Renaud, expert orthopédiste bien connu des milieux juridiques et représenté par Philippe Lelarge , a subi des blessures sérieuses lors d'une collision avec le défendeur Leduc, survenue le 3 février 2002 à St-Sauveur. Dans sa défense, Leduc prétendait que c'était Renaud qui l'avait frappé. En raison de la localisation des blessures de Renaud dans son dos, la Cour a plutôt retenu la version de ce dernier que c'était Leduc qui avait perdu le contrôle et l'avait frappé et elle lui a accordé $ 47.500.

    • 28-05-2007 Plourde vs. Service aérien F.B.O. Inc.
    • Close

      28-05-2007 Plourde vs. Service aérien F.B.O. Inc.

      Aviation law: The Quebec Court of Appeal rendered an important judgment on the interpretation to be given to Article 17 of the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air. An aircraft carrying passengers was forced to land when one of its engines caught fire. None of the passengers were physically harmed. A representative attempted to certify a Class Action in the Province of Quebec against the airline claiming damages for delay but also psychological damages. The Defendant airline represented by Michael Goodhue and Catherine Chaput had successfully argued before the Quebec Superior Court in 2005 that the Class Action should not be certified for psychological damages when there had been no physical injury. The Plaintiff appealed this decision and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused to certify the Class Action for psychological damages.

    • 18-05-2007 142071 Canada Inc (Les Conteneurs D.M.L.)c. Pneus Toyo Canada
    • Close

      18-05-2007 142071 Canada Inc (Les Conteneurs D.M.L.)c. Pneus Toyo Canada

      Liability of the Depository: After having delivered a container of tires to the warehouse operated by Toyo (represented par Benoit Chartier) , DML’s chassis, equipment and the said container were stolen. Alleging that Toyo was fully liable for the stolen goods, DML is claiming an amount of $33,500 from it, alleging that Toyo failed in its obligations. By applying the provisions relevant to matters involving deposits (Art. 2280 C.C.Q. and following), the Judge concluded that Toyo did not commit any fault that would have led to the theft of the goods and that it acted with prudence and diligence. The Judge notably upheld the version of Toyo’s representative over that of DML, Toyo’s version being to the effect that before the theft occurred, Toyo had advised DML to come and get its container that had been emptied of its contents. Knowing the premises, DML knowingly left the container and its chassis in an unsupervised and unprotected courtyard for the entire weekend and thus DML voluntarily assumed a risk for which it must bear the consequences. Action dismissed with costs

    • 07-05-2007 David Clark c. 4107781 CANADA INC. et als. et Municipalité de Wentworth-Nord et als. c. la Mutuelle des Municipalités du Québec (« MMQ »)
    • Close

      07-05-2007 David Clark c. 4107781 CANADA INC. et als. et Municipalité de Wentworth-Nord et als. c. la Mutuelle des Municipalités du Québec (« MMQ »)

      Couverture: Dans le cadre d’un recours collectif, plusieurs parties ont été poursuivies en dommages-intérêts suite à des travaux qui ont eu lieu sur le lac St-François Xavier, travaux qui auraient en quelque sorte « lessivé » en aval le fond du lac. Il en aurait résulté des inconvénients pour les résidents des lacs tributaires.

      Il fallait décider si la Mutuelle des Municipalités du Québec (MMQ) avait l’obligation de défendre la Municipalité de Wentworth-Nord et ses employés compte tenu, entre autre, de certaines allégations de la procédure d’autorisation qui laissaient à entendre que la réclamation concernait des dommages résultant de la pollution du lac St-François Xavier. La police d’assurance en cause comprenait, entre autre, une exclusion portant sur la pollution. Cette dernière était définie comme étant « l’émission, le rejet, l’échappement ou la dispersion de substances solides, liquides ou gazeuses, que ce soit dans l’eau, au sol ou dans l’atmosphère ». L’Honorable Alary a fait une révision de la jurisprudence pertinente en matière d’interprétation des polices d’assurance et elle a conclu qu’en l’instance la requête « Wellington » présentée par les requérants devait être accueillie sauf, bien entendu, en ce qui a trait aux dommages carrément exclus comme les dommages exemplaires. Elle a en conséquence ordonné à la MMQ de prendre le fait et cause de ses assurés et de leur rembourser les frais engagés à ce jour.

    • 19-04-2007 Joseph Gutstadt c. Air Canada and Captain Randy Gouge and Benoît Plamondon
    • Close

      19-04-2007 Joseph Gutstadt c. Air Canada and Captain Randy Gouge and Benoît Plamondon

      Transport : The Plaintiffs were travelling from Toronto to Kingston, Jamaïca when the male passenger became involved in a verbal altercation with the passenger agent of the Defendant Airline. A decision was taken to disembark him at a stopover prior to the final destination. His spouse decided to disembark along with him. Both instituted actions against the Airline, the Captain and the passenger agent. The Defendants were represented by Michael Goodhue and Stéphanie Lalonde . The actions were dismissed, the Court finding that the disruptive passenger was properly disembarked and that his spouse had disembarked on her own accord..

    • 11-04-2007 Optimum Société d’Assurance Inc. vs. Plomberie Raymond Lemelin Inc.
    • Close

      11-04-2007 Optimum Société d’Assurance Inc. vs. Plomberie Raymond Lemelin Inc.

      Liability - Waiver of subrogation : Optimum was claiming from Plomberie Raymond Lemelin (represented by Jean-François Germain) an amount of $110,000.00 for damages sustained to a building owned by its Insured, General Contractor TB Construction Enr., the whole on the basis of a legal subrogation in virtue of a “Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy - Extended Form”. In its claim, Plaintiff reproached Lemelin for a faulty installation of the plumbing system in a four dwelling building which resulted in a leak and caused the alleged damages. Defendant’s Plea was based on two aspects, namely Plaintiff’s waiver of its subrogation rights against third parties having participated in the work on the construction site and, of course, the absence of Defendant’s fault. The Superior Court concluded that even though the Defendant was not a Named Insured in the Insurance Policy, this type of insurance which covers goods protects against the risk of damages caused by the work, can be subscribed for the benefit of third parties who are deemed to hold an insurance interest in the work. Basing itself on the teachings of the Supreme Court as well as the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Court concludes that since the Defendant has an insurable interest in the goods, it thus becomes an Insured under the terms of the Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy. Therefore, the waiver of subrogation must find application and Optimum Société d’Assurance Inc.’s recourse against Lemelin must be dismissed.

    • 13-03-2007 Louis Blanchette c. Corporation Municipale de Sutton c. Lombard Canada
    • Close

      13-03-2007 Louis Blanchette c. Corporation Municipale de Sutton c. Lombard Canada

      Responsabilité municipale/Couverture d'assurance : Blanchette réclamait de Sutton la somme de 178 749, 65$ pour les dommages causés à sa maison en construction parce que Sutton aurait omis de prolonger son permis de construction pour une période additionnelle ce qui lui aurait permis de terminer les travaux avant que la maison ne soit endommagée. Sutton a poursuivi en garantie Lombard (représentée par Benoit Chartier) puisque celle-ci refusait de prendre son fait et cause au motif que la réclamation de Blanchette ne lui avait pas été présentée durant la période de couverture d'assurance et que la clause de prolongation de couverture de 60 jours ne pouvait s'appliquer. La couverture d'assurance se terminait le 31 décembre 2003; la police ne couvrait que les " réclamations présentées et déclarées " pendant la période d'assurance ou au plus, pendant la période de prolongation de 60 jours à condition que la réclamation ait été présentée à l'Assuré et à l'Assureur pour la première fois dans ce délai de 60 jours. L'assureur fut avisé pendant ce délai de 60 jours pour la première fois par réception d'une copie de l'action du demandeur. Toutefois, Lombard a mis en preuve que pendant la période de couverture d'assurance, soit avant l'échéance du 31 décembre 2003, Sutton avait reçu plusieurs lettres de Blanchette indiquant clairement son intention de la poursuivre en dommages. Dès lors, lorsque l'action fut signifiée après le 31 décembre 2003, Sutton ne pouvait prétendre qu'elle était avisée pour la première fois de la réclamation de Blanchette et qu'elle pouvait bénéficier de l'extension de 60 jours. Les lettres reçues avant l'expiration de la période d'assurance étaient suffisamment précises pour constituer des " réclamations présentées " au sens de la police; Sutton devait alors les rapporter pour bénéficier de l'assurance-responsabilité.

      Action accueillie partiellement en faveur du demandeur contre Sutton pour 79 385$; action en garantie contre Lombard rejetée, avec dépens. Léo Daigle, Cour Supérieure.

    • 27-02-2007 Sécurité Nationale Compagnie d’Assurances v. Municipalité de Sainte-Martine
    • Close

      27-02-2007 Sécurité Nationale Compagnie d’Assurances v. Municipalité de Sainte-Martine

      Municipal law: Plaintiff, Sécurité Nationale, sued the Municipality of Sainte-Martine (represented by Stéphanie Lalonde ) for an amount of $19,331.13 as a result of water damages caused to the residence of their Insureds, Daniel Moquin and Carole Brazeau.The Plaintiff alleged that these damages were caused by the Defendant’s ineffective or inadequate water evacuation system.The Honourable Diane Quenneville upheld Defendant’s position to the effect that Plaintiff did not fulfill its burden of proof of establishing that the damages were effectively caused by the autonomous act of an item that was under the care, custody and control of the Municipality of Sainte-Martine.The action was thus dismissed with costs.

    • 29-01-2007 Groupe Estrie-Richelieu v. Ripe Quebec Inc.
    • Close

      29-01-2007 Groupe Estrie-Richelieu v. Ripe Quebec Inc.

      Liability/Fire : The Plaintiffs Groupe Estrie-Richelieu and Axa Assurances Inc. sued Ripe Québec Inc. and its Insurer Lloyd's, represented by Philippe Lelarge , for $340,772.64 and $143, 631.42 respectively, following a fire which occurred at the farm of their Insured on June 1, 2001. The Plaintiffs claimed that the fire was due to the delivery of wood shavings by the Defendants, approximately 9 hours before the discovery of the fire, which caused a spark or a discharge of static electricity. The Honourable Judge Denis Jacques instead retained the thesis of the Defendants that the fire was due to contact between the wood shavings and an electric light bulb situated in the storage room which was left on by the owner, even though the latter denied that fact. Moreover, the Court concluded that the wood shavings delivery person did not have the duty to advise the owner in that regard, the danger being well known. Complete judgment.

  • 2006
    • 06-12-2006 Galerie de la Céramique v. Ville de Repentigny
    • Close

      06-12-2006 Galerie de la Céramique v. Ville de Repentigny

      Municipal Law : The Plaintiff sued the City (represented by Benoit Chartier ) for damages caused by water infiltration on November 25, 2004. A notice was sent to the City on November 26, 2004 by the owner of the building in which the Plaintiff leased its premises. The Plaintiff itself did not send a notice required under the Cities and Towns Act (Article 586), as it contended that the owner of the building was acting as its representative and that the owner's notice of November 26, 2004 availed in its favour. The tenant alleged in addition that it was not made aware of damages until January 6, 2005. Its action was stamped on July 5, 2005. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss of the City on the basis of prescription. As the Plaintiff pleaded that the notice of November 26, 2004 constituted the notice it was required to provide under the Cities and Towns Act, it could not at the same time contend that it was only on January 6, 2005 that its right of action arose. The Court took as the starting point for the calculation of the delay of six (6) months under article 586 the date of the demand letter of November 26, 2004, which document was moreover produced as an Exhibit by the Plaintiff in support of its action. Verbal judgment. Court No. 705-22-006951-055.

    • 01-11-2006 Pierre Fauteux v. Serge Garneau
    • Close

      01-11-2006 Pierre Fauteux v. Serge Garneau

      Professional Liability: Fauteux sued pharmacist Garneau, represented by Philippe Lelarge , for $479,670.00 on the grounds that when he purchased and paid for the three medications prescribed by his doctor, he also received three other medications for another patient. The Plaintiff contended that the combined effect of the six medications that he took lead to a stay in psychiatry and the break up with his spouse. Judge Benoit Emery preferred Garneau's version that Fauteux had wrongfully taken from the cashier a package which was on the counter. The Judge also concluded that a reasonable person would have realized his error. There was thus no fault committed. Moreover, he concluded that there was no causal link, the break up of Fauteux with his wife having taken place prior to the consumption of the medications which had caused Fauteux' s depression. Action dismissed.

    • 31-10-2006 Manac/Nortex et al. vs BI&I Inc (Court of Appeal)
    • Close

      31-10-2006 Manac/Nortex et al. vs BI&I Inc (Court of Appeal)

      Products liability: P.Claude Laporte , Philippe Lelarge and Benoit Chartier successfully pleaded an important products liability case on behalf of our client The Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company of Canada ("BI&I"). In a judgment of more than 70 pages dated October 31, 2006, the Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissed the appeals brought against the decision of the Superior Court of September 26, 2003 which maintained a subrogation action of BI&I against the Defendants Manac and SIA. The current value of the judgment, including interest, is slightly over $21,000,000. The matter deals with the liability of a manufacturer of a new wall covering material, called Arcoplast, which was represented by its distributor as being non-combustible. The two courts come to the conclusion that Arcoplast was developped in an ad hoc fashion, was not properly tested and contributed to the propagation of a fire which should have remained confined.

    • 19-10-2006 Markel Compagnie d’Assurance du Canada v. Compagnie d’Assurance CGU du Canada ltée, (Court of Appeal).
    • Close

      19-10-2006 Markel Compagnie d’Assurance du Canada v. Compagnie d’Assurance CGU du Canada ltée, (Court of Appeal).

      Coverage: Michael Goodhue and Carmine Iovino successfully pleaded an automobile insurance coverage case on behalf of Markel Insurance Company of Canada. The Court of Appeal overturned an earlier judgement condemning Markel to pay $ 1 200 000. Complete text.

    • 06-10-2006 Monique Desjardins v. Les Placements Rockhill Ltée
    • Close

      06-10-2006 Monique Desjardins v. Les Placements Rockhill Ltée

      Owner-Landlord Liability : Rockhill (represented by Benoit Chartier ) was sued by one of its tenants who claimed that jewellery having a value of approximately $60,000 was stolen from her apartment during painting work which was being done by a subcontractor of Rockhill. The Court dismissed the action because the Defendant established that it did not commit any fault in retaining the services of a reliable contractor, which it had worked with for over 20 years and against which no complaint had ever been made by the tenants. Moreover, there was continual surveillance on a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week basis and no theft problem had ever arisen previously in the Rockhill apartments. In addition, there was no proof that the subcontractor stole the jewellery. There is no presumption of liability in case of theft against the owner of a residential building according to the rulings of the Court of Appeal. The theft which occurred was thus not foreseeable and there was no basis to trigger the liability of Rockhill, no fault having been proved in this regard. Verbal judgment rendered in Court record no. 500-22-109155-054

    • 29-09-2006 Consul-Tech and General Cable v. Brock Export and Kingsway
    • Close

      29-09-2006 Consul-Tech and General Cable v. Brock Export and Kingsway

      Coverage: Carmine Iovino successfully pleaded a case on behalf of Kingsway General Insurance Company who denied coverage under an unattended vehicle exclusion. The Court had to decide if the Insured had respected a warranty of the insurance policy which provided that cargos of copper had to be under constant surveillance. Mr. Justice Gagnon decided that the Insured did not comply with this warranty and that the Insurer was entitled to invoke the suspension of coverage set out in the insurance policy. Action dismissed.Complete text (pdf).

    • 06-06-2006 Kosko c. Bijimine et Fonds d'Assurance Responsabilité du Barreau du Québec (Court of Court)
    • Close

      06-06-2006 Kosko c. Bijimine et Fonds d'Assurance Responsabilité du Barreau du Québec (Court of Court)

      Evidence/Privilege: Plaintiff sued defendants represented by Philippe Lelarge on the grounds (amongst others) that attorney Bijimine had not given him adequate advice during a judicial mediation . Plaintiff tried to bring into evidence events which took place during the mediation, on the grounds that the usual principles of privilege did not apply between himself and his attorney. In an elaborate decision, the first on this issue, the Court of Appeal held that this principle was of overriding importance and that the objection to proof should be maintained. Complete text.

    • 20-02-2006 Charles Lemieux and Christine Fedak c. Proslide Technology Inc.
    • Close

      20-02-2006 Charles Lemieux and Christine Fedak c. Proslide Technology Inc.

      Sports liability: The Plaintiffs claimed damages from the Defendant (represented by Carole Samuel)arising from a skiing accident which resulted in the Plaintiff Lemieux suffering a cervical fracture. The Plaintiffs claimed that the fall was due solely to the failure of the Defendant to maintain its runs and to adequately warn users that a part of a run was not maintained. The Superior Court held that the general duty of supervision and of vigilance of a ski centre was one of means and an accessory obligation. The Court concluded that the Defendant, which had installed bamboo poles to warn the users to avoid a part of the run, had fulfilled its general obligations of care and had taken useful precautions in the circumstances. Action dismissed. Complete text.

    • 16-02-2006 S.M.J.C. Transport Inc. c. Compagnie d'assurances Kingsway.
    • Close

      16-02-2006 S.M.J.C. Transport Inc. c. Compagnie d'assurances Kingsway.

      Transportation/coverage : Action by an Insured against its Insurer (represented by Luc Pelletier) following a denial of coverage. The Court had to decide if the Insured had respected a warranty provision of the insurance policy which provided that the load had to be under "constant surveillance". Mr. Justice Tardif decided that the Insured did not comply with this warranty provision and that the Insurer was entitled to invoke the suspension of the coverage set out in the insurance policy. Action dismissed. Complete text.

    • 10-02-2006 Nathalie Brault et al c. Ville de Farnham (2006 QCCS 663)
    • Close

      10-02-2006 Nathalie Brault et al c. Ville de Farnham (2006 QCCS 663)

      Municipal Liability: The City of Farnham (represented by Louis Brien and Claude Laporte) was sued following the drowning of a 10 year old boy in the Yamaska River. The boy gained access to the river from a boat ramp in a municipal park which bordered the river. The Plaintiffs contended that the water attracted the children and that the Plaintiff should have therefore fenced in the bank to secure the premises. The Court concluded that even though the location was the occasion for the drowning, the boat ramp itself was not dangerous but rather the swimming without supervision and contrary to the clear orders of the parents. The Court states that the City is not the insurer of all persons who come onto its territory and that it has no more liability than any other waterfront owner and could not be held liable for failing to fence in the banks. It is also mentioned that the layout of the land bordering the river did not constitute a trap. Action dismissed. Complete text.

    • 30-01-2006 American Home Assurance c.Co.d'assurance générale Lombard
    • Close

      30-01-2006 American Home Assurance c.Co.d'assurance générale Lombard

      Couverture: Appel de American Home contre Lombard et son assurée SOPFEU (représentées par Catherine Chaput). Le jugement de 1ère instance avait condamné American Home à titre d'assureur d'un avion, à indemniser Lombard et SOPFEU suite à son écrasement ayant détruit la console de communication de SOPFEU destinée à coordoner les avions-citerne, lors de combats d'incendies de forêt. American Home avait invoqué diverses exclusions. Appel rejeté.Texte complet

    • 18-01-2006 Jasmin Belhumeur c. Gilbert Inspection (2006 QCCQ 158 )
    • Close

      18-01-2006 Jasmin Belhumeur c. Gilbert Inspection (2006 QCCQ 158 )

      Responsabilité professionnelle: un inspecteur en bâtiment (représenté par Julie Delaney ) retenu par les acheteurs potentiels a été poursuivi par le propriétaire qui prétendait avoir perdu la vente de sa propriété, suite au rapport prétendument erroné de cet inspecteur. Action rejetée.Texte complet

  • 2005
    • 22-12-2005 Rôtisserie Ste-Thérèse inc. c. Ville de Ste-Thérèse
    • Close

      22-12-2005 Rôtisserie Ste-Thérèse inc. c. Ville de Ste-Thérèse

      Municipal Liability : Ville de Ste-Thérèse (represented by Benoît Chartier) was sued for damages by Plaintiff following a four-day interruption of the City's water supply, during which Plaintiff could not operate its business and it is thus claiming for business interruption as well as exemplary damages. The Court exonerated the City since Plaintiff has not established that the City committed any fault in the maintenance of its water system. Furthermore, the repairs to the water main were competed quickly and without delay by the City. The Court also states that citizens must sustain the normal inconveniences of Municipal maintenance work.Complete text

    • 05-12-2005 Gabriel Plourde c. Service Aérien F.B.O. INC. (Skyservice)
    • Close

      05-12-2005 Gabriel Plourde c. Service Aérien F.B.O. INC. (Skyservice)

      Transportation/Class Action: Plourde sought permission to institute a class action on behalf of the passengers of a flight operated by the Defendant (represented by Michael Goodhue and Catherine Chaput). The most important part of the action concerned the psychological damages allegedly suffered. The Defendant succeeded in arguing that only the damages due to delays are compensable, to the exclusion of the psychological damages. Complete text.

    • 02-12-2005 115672 Canada Inc c. Souscripteurs de l'Est(Kingsway)
    • Close

      02-12-2005 115672 Canada Inc c. Souscripteurs de l'Est(Kingsway)

      Coverage: Action by an Insured against its Insurer (represented by Philippe Lelarge) following a denial of coverage. The Insured had made a verbal request to reduce its territorial operation, but no Endorsement had been sent to it at the time of the loss. Action dismissed. Appeal dismissed on April 24 2006. Complete text.

    • 25-08-2005 Sheri Malette v. Boulangeries Weston Québec Limitée
    • Close

      25-08-2005 Sheri Malette v. Boulangeries Weston Québec Limitée

      Product/Manufacturer's Liability : Weston (represented by Benoît Chartier), was sued by Malette following her discovery of a needle between two slices of Weston bread purchased in a grocery store. Even though Plaintiff was not injured in any way, she claimed $15,000 for anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life, trouble and inconvenience for simply finding the needle in the bread. From the perspective of the Consumer Protection Act and Article 1469 C.C.Q., the Court upheld the proof put forth by Weston to the effect that the needle could in no way have resulted from the manufacturing process of the bread. The action was dismissed.

    • 24-08-2005 ABB Inc.et Alstom Canada Inc c. Gan Insurance Company
    • Close

      24-08-2005 ABB Inc.et Alstom Canada Inc c. Gan Insurance Company

      Coverage: The Court of Appeal dismisses Alstom's appeal against Gan (represented by Ron Silverson and François Joubert) in the amount of 17 996 353$ and maintains the decision of Judge Hilton in Superior court, but for different reasons. Effectively, the Court of Appeal applies the exclusion of damages to the Insured's product, namely the Superheater, and the exclusion of the loss of use of the Insured's product, namely the business interruption claimed by Domtar. The Court of Appeal also dismisses Alstom's argument that an exception to the exclusion, to the effect that only the defective parts of the Insured's product are excluded, should apply. Alstom alleged that only the rigid tie welds of the Superheater were defective and should be excluded. The Court of Appeal concludes that the tie welds, which played an essential role and were an integral part of the superheater, cannot be considered as the only defecti

    • 22-08-2005 Monit Properties Inc. c. Services d'immigration Prisma Ltée
    • Close

      22-08-2005 Monit Properties Inc. c. Services d'immigration Prisma Ltée

      Responsabilité contractuelle/locataire-locateur : Monit réclamait des loyers de Prisma laquelle répliqua avec une défense et demande reconventionnelle (Monit étant représentée par Benoît Chartier uniquement pour la demande reconventionnelle vu la couverture d'assurance). Appliquant rigoureusement les clauses d'exonération et d'assurance contenues dans le bail commercial intervenu entre les parties, le Tribunal a rejeté la demande reconventionnelle de Prisma puisque aucune preuve de faute lourde permettant d'écarter les clauses n'avait été faite.

    • 06-07-2005 Jean-Marie Côté c. Me Vincent Karim et Me René Bureau
    • Close

      06-07-2005 Jean-Marie Côté c. Me Vincent Karim et Me René Bureau

      Professional liability: Côte sued the Defendants (represented by Philippe Lelarge) on the ground that due to illness, Me Karim was replaced by Me Bureau for a hearing before the Court of Appeal which he lost. Madame Justice Hélène Poulin concluded that the Defendant had not established the causal link between his damages and the alleged fault. Action dismissed. Complete Text.

    • 06-07-2005 Dubé c. Domaine de Ski Mont-Bruno Inc.
    • Close

      06-07-2005 Dubé c. Domaine de Ski Mont-Bruno Inc.

      Sports liability: Mr. Dubé sued Mont-Bruno (represented by Claude Laporte) for the severe injuries he suffered to his leg from a snowboard accident. The Superior Court confirmed the clearly established principles that the Defendant was not the insurer of the Plaintiff, that the latter had to act prudently and that snowboarding entailed certain inherent dangers that the Plaintiff, an experienced snowboarder, accepted from the start. Action dismissed. Complete text.

    • 05-07-2005 Case known as the "Petit Train du Nord".
    • Close

      05-07-2005 Case known as the "Petit Train du Nord".

      Coverage: Me Laporte represented Tig Insurance Company. In a judgment dated November 30, 2004, the Superior Court granted the action against the M.R.C. and the Attorney General of Quebec but dismissed it against the two snowmobile clubs which were sued and the liability Insurers, including Tig. An Appeal from this decision was filed and several Motions to dismiss the Appeal were presented. The Motions were granted by the Court of Appeal which concluded that the M.R.C. did not have any right of Appeal against the snowmobile clubs and the liability Insurers. Complete text.

    • 30-06-2005 Jean Roussin v. Me Luc Carbonneau
    • Close

      30-06-2005 Jean Roussin v. Me Luc Carbonneau

      Professional liability: Roussin sued Me Carbonneau (represented by Philippe Lelarge) on the basis that he had allowed a wrongful dismissal recourse against the RCMP before the Federal Court to be prescribed. Madam Justice Danielle Grenier concluded that even if there were a fault, the action of the Plaintiff against the RCMP was bound to fail. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 09-06-2005 Laurin v. Centres Commerciaux Régionaux du Québec Ltée
    • Close

      09-06-2005 Laurin v. Centres Commerciaux Régionaux du Québec Ltée

      Fall /automobile accident: The Plaintiff fell on ice in a parking lot belonging to the Defendant (represented by Jean-François Germain). Motion to Dismiss on the ground that it was an automobile accident. Examination of causal link. Motion granted. Complete text

    • 19-05-2005 Denis Doyon v. Université du Québec à Montréal
    • Close

      19-05-2005 Denis Doyon v. Université du Québec à Montréal

      Action for damages: Denis Doyon sued UQAM (represented by Carole Samuel) for having lost two years of his life after failing a graduate program in finance which he took to become a portfolio manager. Mr. Justice Caron declined to find any fault on the part of UQAM for the setbacks of the Plaintiff. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 18-05-2005 Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of Canada c. Bernard Brouillard Ltée et Câbles Systèmes Pirelli Inc.
    • Close

      18-05-2005 Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of Canada v. Brouillard Ltée et Câbles Systèmes Pirelli Inc.

      Action in damages: The Plaintiff sued the Defendants (represented by Carole Samuel) for damages caused by a fire. The Defendants were able to prove that they did not commit any fault and that the cause of the fire was not established. Action dismissed.Complete text

    • 17-05-2005 Lapierre v. Cadillac Fairview v. Empire Maintenance
    • Close

      17-05-2005 Lapierre v. Cadillac Fairview v. Empire Maintenance

      Bodily injuries: Action of the Plaintiff following a fall in a shopping centre (represented by Jean-François Germain). Action in warranty against the maintenance company. The two actions were dismissed. Complete text

    • 13-05-2005 Vivier v. Marquette
    • Close

      13-05-2005 Vivier v. Marquette

      Bodily injuries: The Plaintiff sued her former brother-in-law Marquette (represented by Philippe Lelarge) for serious injuries suffered to her head as a result of a fall at the home of Marquette. A door that she thought led to the wash room, instead opened up on the basement stairs on which she fell. In light of the notion of "trap" and the knowledge of the premises by the Plaintiff, the Court allotted liability of 50% to each party. The Court also considerably reduced the amount claimed, granting a total of $25,000.00 to the Plaintiff. Complete text.

    • 23-03-2005 Richard Daigle et al. v. Me Jacques Forgues
    • Close

      23-03-2005 Richard Daigle et al. v. Me Jacques Forgues

      Professional liability: The Plaintiffs contended that Me Forgues (represented by Philippe Lelarge) did not advise them early on that their recourse against their vendor was likely to fail. The Court, reiterating that the obligation of an attorney is one of means, concluded that there was no fault. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 25-02-2005 Manon Lalumière and Bertrand Bourgeois v. Centre Commercial Les Rivières Ltée and American Home Insurance Co.
    • Close

      25-02-2005 Manon Lalumière and Bertrand Bourgeois v. Centre Commercial Les Rivières Ltée and American Home Insurance Co.

      Fall / bodily injury: The Plaintiffs sued the Defendants (represented by Luc Pelletier) for damages suffered by the Plaintiff Lalumière after falling on an icy parking lot. Mr. Justice Robert Legris was of the opinion that the Defendants did not commit any fault. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 17-02-2005 Société Radio-Canada v. Guitouni (Appeal)
    • Close

      17-02-2005 Société Radio-Canada v. Guitouni (Appeal)

      Special fee: Decision of the Court of Appeal maintaining the decision of the Superior Court granting a special fee of $70,000.00 to the attorneys of Guitouni (represented by Claude Laporte) given the importance and complexity of the matter. Complete text

    • 03-02-2005 Placement Ojeil Inc. v. La Ville de Longueuil
    • Close

      03-02-2005 Placement Ojeil Inc. v. La Ville de Longueuil

      Municipal law/prescription: In this matter, Mr. Justice Louis Lacoursière of the Superior Court of the District of Longueuil confirmed the prescription of six months in an action instituted against a City for property damage. In this case, the Plaintiff sued the City and its Fire Department (represented by Catherine Chaput ) for damages caused by a fire which had occurred almost three years before the institution of the action. On the basis of the Gagnon and Choquette vs. Ville de Montréal and Oppenheim, rendered on February 5, 2004 by Mr. Justice Tellier, the Plaintiff claimed that her recourse was governed by the prescription of three years set out in the Civil Code of Quebec and not by Section 586 of the Cities and Towns Act. Mr. Justice Lacoursière respectfully disagreed with the reasoning of Mr. Justice Tellier and reaffirmed the well-established principle that this type of damages is subject to the short prescription of Section 586 .

    • 12-01-2005 Bell Canada v. Vidéotron Télécom v. Les Lignes Romarc:
    • Close

      12-01-2005 Bell Canada v. Vidéotron Télécom v. Les Lignes Romarc:

      Contractual liability and contract for services : Bell claimed from Vidéotron Télécom (represented by Benoît Chartier) damages following the rupture of cables belonging to it and located in one of its underground conduits. Bell gave Vidéotron Télécom access so that it could install an optic fibre cable. Vidéotron Télécom mandated Romarc to do the work related to installing and connecting the fibre optic cable. In view of the contract for services entered into between Vidéotron Télécom and Romarc, including various exoneration and indemnification clauses, Romarc had to hold Vidéotron Télécom harmless and reimburse Bell for the damages it sustained.Complete text

  • 2004
    • 30-11-2004 File known as the 'Petit train du Nord' (S.C.)
    • Close

      30-11-2004 File known as the 'Petit train du Nord' (S.C.)

      Coverage: Claude Laporte represented TIG Insurance Company, the Insurer of one of the Defendants. The Superior Court maintained the action against the M.R.C. but dismissed it against the two snowmobile clubs sued as well as the liability insurers, including TIG. Complete text

    • 05-10-2004 Les Entreprises Michel Duchesneau c. Gilbert Grondin c. Municipalité de Granby
    • Close

      05-10-2004 Les Entreprises Michel Duchesneau c. Gilbert Grondin c. Municipalité de Granby

      Municipal liability/civil procedure : Duchesneau Inc. sued Grondin, claiming the cost of the work necessitated to move the foundation of a house under construction. Grondin is reproached for having improperly drawn up its positioning plan which caused the Municipality to require the moving of the foundation as it was too close to the backset line to be respected. Grondin instituted a warranty action against the Municipality represented by Benoit Chartier on the grounds that it should have noticed the error in the positioning and not have issued the construction permit as this would have prevented the non-compliant construction. The Municipality presented a Motion to Dismiss the Warranty Action on the grounds that there was no legal connection, either contractual or extra-contractual, between it and Grondin. The Motion was granted and the warranty action against the Municipality was dismissed; the Court stating that Grondin should have proceeded by way of a forced intervention. .Complete text

    • 21-09-2004 Factory Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bernard Gérin-Lajoie et al
    • Close

      21-09-2004 Factory Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bernard Gérin-Lajoie et al

      Prescription / Motion to dismiss: FM added the liability insurer (represented by Benoit Chartier)of a Defendant to a subrogation action more than three years after the loss. FM pleaded that the service of the action against an insured interrupts prescription against its liability insurer since they are solidarily liable. The Court concluded there was no such solidary liability and dismissed the action against Lombard.Complete text

    • 14-09-2004 Bell Canada c. Excavation Daniel Latour inc.
    • Close

      14-09-2004 Bell Canada c. Excavation Daniel Latour inc.

      Extra-contractual liability /excavation work: Bell was claiming an amount from Latour Inc. (represented by Benoit Chartier) for damages allegedly caused to an underground cable belonging to it. When Latour Inc did the clean-up work and layout of the land for one of its clients, an underground cable belonging to Bell was allegedly damaged. No direct proof was presented by Bell to establish that the cable had been damaged by Latour Inc. Only the presence of a backhoe close to the location of the broken cable several days after its discovery caused Bell to institute proceedings against Latour Inc. The action was dismissed because Latour Inc. established that it did not do any work at the exact location of the damaged cable even though it did work on the adjacent land. EYB 2004-70545

    • 27-07-2004 Mastromatteo v. Lombard General Insurance Company
    • Close

      27-07-2004 Mastromatteo v. Lombard General Insurance Company

      Coverage: This judgment arose out of a garnishment served on Lombard (represented by Philippe Lelarge) by the Plaintiff following her dismissal by Lombard's Insured. The Plaintiff claimed that the insurance contract of the insured covered this type of loss. The Superior Court held that the loss was subject to a specific exclusion. It also mentioned that the dismissal was an intentional act and thus not covered according to article 2464 C.C.Q. Claim dismissed. Complete text

    • 18-05-2004 Joseph El-Bayeh v. Me Danielle Oiknine
    • Close

      18-05-2004 Joseph El-Bayeh v. Me Danielle Oiknine

      Professional liability: The Plaintiff sued the Defendant (represented by Philippe Lelarge) on the ground that she purportedly had him subscribe to shares of a company against his will, rendering him ineligible to acquire a contractor's permit from the Régie du Bâtiment. The Court came to the conclusion that the allegation was unfounded. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 11-05-2004 François Berger v. Ville de St-Jean-sur-Richelieu
    • Close

      11-05-2004 François Berger v. Ville de St-Jean-sur-Richelieu

      Arrest/prescription: Motion to Dismiss by the City of St-Jean (represented by Jean-François Germain) on the grounds of the six month prescription set out in Section 586 of the Cities and Towns Act, since the damages claimed were only moral damages. Motion Granted. Complete text

    • 27-02-2004 American Home Insurance v. Camions Maska Inc.
    • Close

      27-02-2004 American Home Insurance v. Camions Maska Inc.

      Fire/subrogation: American Home (represented by Louis Brien) sued Maska for $104,518.68$ following a fire in the truck of its insured. Action granted. Complete text

    • 09-02-2004 Matthieu v. Fonds d'Assurance Responsabilité du Barreau
    • Close

      09-02-2004 Matthieu v. Fonds d'Assurance Responsabilité du Barreau

      Procedure: In this case, the Fonds (represented by Louis-Philippe Cartier), obtained a judgment re-affirming the principle that it is not necessary to obtain prior permission of the Court to institute a forced intervention. Complete text

    • 23-01-2004 Laflamme v. Fonds d'Assurance Responsabilité du Barreau
    • Close

      23-01-2004 Laflamme v. Fonds d'Assurance Responsabilité du Barreau

      Professional liability: Action by Laflamme against the Insurer (represented by Philippe Lelarge) of her former attorney, Me Gaétan Desnoyers, who had claimed to have instituted an action in Plaintiff's name without in fact doing so. The action was dismissed as the recourse would have failed in any event. Discussion of the wear and tear exclusion. Complete text

    • 05-01-2004 Denis Desjardins v. Station de la Vallée St-Sauveur (1996)
    • Close

      05-01-2004 Denis Desjardins v. Station de la Vallée St-Sauveur (1996)

      Ski liability: The Plaintiff instituted an action against a ski centre (represented by Claude Laporte) following a collision with an hydrant used to manufacture snow. Overview of the principles in similar cases. Action dismissed. Complete text

  • 2003
    • 24-10-2003 Lombard Canada Assurance v. Coffrages de L'Estrie
    • Close

      24-10-2003 Lombard Canada Assurance v. Coffrages de L'Estrie

      Fire: Subrogation recourse of Lombard in the amount of $277,000.00 and of Lloyd's for $41,000.00 (represented by Philippe Lelarge) following a fire which occurred during renovations to a building. Action granted. Complete text

    • 26-09-2003 The Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company of Canada et al v. Manac / Nortex et al
    • Close

      26-09-2003 The Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company of Canada et al v. Manac / Nortex et al

      Product liability: BI&I (represented by Philippe Lelarge, Benoît Chartier and Claude Laporte) sued Manac with respect to a wall covering product which was held out to be inflammable. The Court (after a trial of seven months) came to the conclusion that the product greatly contributed to the destruction of the PrimaViande plant which was insured by BI&I. The action was granted for $8,425,000.00 (which, with interest, represents an amount of more than $20,000,000.00). Complete text

    • 04-07-2003 ABB inc. et Alstom Canada Inc. v. Gan Canada Ins. Co.
    • Close

      04-07-2003 ABB inc. et Alstom Canada Inc. v. Gan Canada Ins. Co.

      Coverage: Legal proceedings for $17,996,353 by Domtar against Alstom (formerly Combustion Engineering) following leaks on a Superheater forming part of a Recovery Boiler designed, manufactured and installed by Alstom at Domtar's plant in Windsor, Quebec. Domtar was claming for temporary repairs, replacement of the Superheater and business interruption during the stoppage of operations. In a separate action, but which was joined for trial, Alstom requested reimbursement of the defence costs and the amount of any condemnation from Gan (represented by Ron Silverson and François Joubert)which had issued a 'Wrap-Up' Liability Insurance Policy. Judge Hilton, then of the Superior Court, maintained Domtar's Principal Action for $13,366,583, but dismissed Alstom's action against Gan. Judge Hilton concluded that, by its nature, the 'Wrap-Up' Policy issued by Gan only applies to the construction contract and Alstom's activities on the construction site and did not apply to the contract relating to the design and manufacture of the Superheater in the plant. Since Domtar's action was for the faulty design of the Superheater, Judge Hilton declared that Gan's Policy was not applicable and dismissed Alstom's action. Full text

    • 20-05-2003 Freins 3A Inc. v. CGU Cie d'Assurance and Lombard du Canada
    • Close

      20-05-2003 Freins 3A Inc. v. CGU Cie d'Assurance and Lombard du Canada

      Coverage: Determination of which insurer, CGU or Lombard (represented by François Joubert), had to take up the defence of the Plaintiff. Rules of interpretation. Complete text

    • 25-02-2003 Succession Claude Philippe v. Desjardins
    • Close

      25-02-2003 Succession Claude Philippe v. Desjardins

      Liability: Claim against the Defendant (represented by Antoine St-Germain and Louis-Philippe Cartier) following carbon monoxide poisoning on the work site. Care and control of heating equipment. Warnings. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 20-02-2003 Claude Forget v. Mont Sutton Inc.
    • Close

      20-02-2003 Claude Forget v. Mont Sutton Inc.

      Sports liability: The Plaintiff sued Sutton (represented by Claude Laporte) following injury suffered while getting off a chairlift. No fault was demonstrated. The Court reiterated the theory of acceptance of risk. Action dismissed.

  • 2002
    • 05-11-2002 George Lamontagne v. Timex Realty Co. v. W&P Plow-Away Services
    • Close

      05-11-2002 George Lamontagne v. Timex Realty Co. v. W&P Plow-Away Services

      Fall/snow removal contract: Claim of Lamontagne against Timex for injuries and warranty action of Timex against Plow-Away (represented by Antoine St-Germain) based on a snow removal contract. Overview of the applicable principles by Madame Justice St-Pierre. The two actions were dismissed. Complete text

    • 23-10-2002 General Accident Insurance v. Kleen-Tek v. Kingsway Insurance Co
    • Close

      23-10-2002 General Accident Insurance v. Kleen-Tek v. Kingsway Insurance Co

      Coverage: Subrogation action of General Accident against Kleen-Tek following removal of snow from a roof after the 1998 ice storm. Warranty action of Kleen-Tek against its insurer (represented by Philippe Lelarge. Exclusions. Actions dismissed. Complete text

    • 17-07-2002 Optimum Assurance Agricole v. Jacques Fauteux
    • Close

      17-07-2002 Optimum Assurance Agricole v. Jacques Fauteux

      Fire: Claim of Optimum against Fauteux (represented by Antoine St-Germain) for a fire immediately following the delivery of woodchips. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 20-02-2002 Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. of Canada c.Manac Inc
    • Close

      20-02-2002 Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. of Canada c.Manac Inc

      Procédure/Intervention: Requête en intervention conservatoire de la Zurich à titre d'assureur excédentaire, prétendant qu'elle a un intérêt pécunier, puisqu'elle risque devoir verser un montant important. Selon le tribunal, cet intérêt ne correspond pas à l'intérêt exigé par l'art. 212 C.p.c. Zurich n'a en outre aucune obligation de défendre son assurée. Requête rejetée. Texte complet.

    • 18-02-2002 Soprema v. Gerling Globale Compagnie d'Assurances Générales
    • Close

      18-02-2002 Soprema v. Gerling Globale Compagnie d'Assurances Générales

      Coverage: Claim of Soprema against Gerling (represented by Ronald Silverson) for damages arising during the ice storm of 1998. Exclusions. Action dismissed. Complete text

  • ...
    • 24-10-2001 Wylma Jacobs Migikovsky v. Holt Renfrew
    • Close

      24-10-2001 Wylma Jacobs Migikovsky v. Holt Renfrew

      Bodily injuries: Action of the Plaintiff following a fall in the store of the Defendant (represented by Louis Brien). Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 24-05-2001 Reliance Construction Co. v. Commerce and Industry (Appeal)
    • Close

      24-05-2001 Reliance Construction Co. v. Commerce and Industry (Appeal)

      Construction: Decision of the Court of Appeal maintaining the subrogation recourse (which had been granted in 1997 by the Superior Court) of Commerce and Industry (represented by Philippe Lelarge) following water infiltration problems in a recently constructed building.The judment raises the issue of the intensity of a builder's obligation, as well as when a contractual fault can serve as a basis for an extra-contractual fault. Complete text

    • 14-05-2001 Ecclesiastical insurance c. CGU co. d'assurance du Canada
    • Close

      14-05-2001 Ecclesiastical insurance c. CGU co. d'assurance du Canada

      Subrogation: Requête en irrecevabilité de CGU contre le recours en subrogation de Ecclesiatical (représentée par Ron Silverson)suite à l'incendie d'un immeuble, au motif que l'assurée de cette dernière, propriétaire de l'immeuble, recevait un montant de son locataire assurée par CGU, en regard des primes d'assurance payées . Étude de la jurisprudence pertinente. Requête rejetée.Texte complet.

    • 14-02-2001 Oppenheim (Lloyd's) c. Mercedes-Benz
    • Close

      14-02-2001 Oppenheim (Lloyd's) c. Mercedes-Benz

      Défauts cachés/Fardeau de preuve: Suite à l'incendie d'un véhicule récent, Lloyd's (représenté par Philippe Lelarge)a intenté un recours en subrogation contre Mercedes-Benz.La Cour d'Appel, renversant le jugement de 1 ère instance, conclut que le fardeau de preuve incombe au fabricant de démontrer pourquoi il n'est pas responsable de la perte, à défaut de quoi, il devra succomber. Appel acceuilli.Texte complet.

    • 03-02-2000 Oppenheim c. Chubb Security Canada et Sécurité Sélect
    • Close

      03-02-2000 Oppenheim c. Chubb Security Canada et Sécurité Sélect

      Système d'alarme: Réclamation suite au vol de pièces électroniques dans un local protégé par un système d'alarme et relié à une centrale. Envoi d'un gardien de sécurité de Sécurité Sélect (représentée par Philippe Lelarge). Obligation des divers intervenants.Action rejetée. Texte complet.

    • 10-01-1998 Cigna Assurance v. Catlen Transport
    • Close

      10-01-1998 Cigna Assurance v. Catlen Transport

      Transport: Motion to Dismiss of Catlen and others against the subrogation action of Cigna (represented by Philippe Lelarge) on the grounds that the statutory notice required under Article 2050 C.C.Q. had not been given. According to the Court, the sending of invoices for the stolen merchandise could avail as such notice. Motion dismissed (the action was subsequently granted). Complete text

    • 05-04-1998 Shannon Sullivan v. Camp Carowanis (Appeal)
    • Close

      05-04-1998 Shannon Sullivan v. Camp Carowanis (Appeal)

      Bodily injuries: Decision of the Court of Appeal maintaining the judgment of the Superior Court which dismissed the action of the Plaintiff for $4,000,000.00 against the Camp (represented by Philippe Lelarge) following a diving accident which had rendered the Plaintiff paraplegic. Complete text

    • 27-11-1997 Rocheleau v. Downs
    • Close

      27-11-1997 Rocheleau v. Downs

      Professional liability: Claim of Messrs. Rocheleau, father and son, against their former attorney, Me Downs (represented by Philippe Lelarge) with respect to a zoning claim. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 18-11-1997 Commerce & Industry v. Petro-Canada
    • Close

      18-11-1997 Commerce & Industry v. Petro-Canada

      Subrogation: Claim of Commerce & Industry (represented by Michael Goodhue) for damages suffered by its insured Polysar following an interruption of electrical current. The Court concluded that Polysar did not have to provide for emergency measures in advance. Action granted for $1,320,000.00. Complete text

    • 25-02-1997 Shannon Sullivan v. Camp Carowanis
    • Close

      25-02-1997 Shannon Sullivan v. Camp Carowanis

      Bodily injuries: Claim against Camp Carowanis (represented by Philippe Lelarge) of a young camper who became paraplegic following a diving accident. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 22-01-1997 Bastien & Champagne c. André Cardin
    • Close

      22-01-1997 Bastien & Champagne c. André Cardin

      Responsabilité professionnelle: Action sur comptes contre Cardin et demande reconventionnelle en responsabilité professionnelle contre les 2 avocats. Les 2 demandes sont rejetées. Texte complet

    • 15-05-1991 Commercial Union c. Nacan Products
    • Close

      15-05-1991 Commercial Union c. Nacan Products

      Preuve: Notes consultées par un représentant de Nacan représentée par (Claude Laporte) lors de son interrogatoire. Limites à ce qui doit être produit par le témoin. Texte complet

Publications

  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
Next article

Michael Goodhue, Antoine St-Germain and Ronald W. Silverson will be listed in the 2014 edition of the book “The Best Lawyers in Canada” in the specialty of Insurance Law.

Go back to start

Ronald W. Silverson is listed in the 2013 edition of the book “ The Best Lawyers in Canada” in the specialty of Insurance Law.

Presentations

  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • ...
Next article

Ronald W. Silverson was named to the Bar of Montreal’s “Committee on Accessibility to the Justice System in English” for 2013-2014.

Previous article
Next article

Ronald W. Silverson was a speaker at the Bar of Quebec’s Conference on “ Recent Developments in Insurance Law (2013)” which will was held in Montreal on October 4, 2013. His paper is entitled “The concepts of “fortuity” and “accident” after Progressive Homes”.

Previous article
Next article

Ronald W. Silverson was the moderator for the ARC Group Canada Conference on “Defending brain Injury Claims” which was held in Toronto on September 19, 2013.

Previous article

On May 23, 2013, Louis-Philippe Cartier and Ronald W. Silverson gave a conference to an insurance company on the topic of “The Duty to Defend in Quebec and errors and omissions policies- from theory to practice”.

Links

      Contact us

Gasco Goodhue St-Germain
1000, Sherbrooke Street West,
Suite 800
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 3G4

Tel : (514) 397-0066
Fax : (514) 397-0393
info@gasco.qc.ca

Google Map

Judgments

  • 2013
    • 19-11-2013 Baribeau vs. Les Entreprises Roofmart Ltée
    • Close

      19-11-2013 Baribeau vs. Les Entreprises Roofmart Ltée

      Pursuant to the Contestation filed before the Labour Commission, and at the start of the hearing on the merits of this complaint, Alexandre Janin was able to obtain the dismissal of said claim, which was unfounded both in fact and in law.

    • 15-04-2013 Les Entreprises Roofmart Ltée vs. David Martineau and Martin Larouche
    • Close

      15-04-2013 Les Entreprises Roofmart Ltée vs. David Martineau and Martin Larouche

      In the context of legal proceedings filed in recovery of amounts owed pursuant to a suretyship, Alexandre Janin was successful in obtaining, to the benefit of his client, a judgement for the amount of $158,000.00. In this matter, many issues related to suretyships were at issue and analyzed by the Court, notably the benefits of discussion and division, solidarity between sureties, the duty to inform and the scope of the suretyship.

    • 18-02-2013 Tembec Industries Inc. vs. AIG Commercial Insurance Company of Canada
    • Close

      18-02-2013 Tembec Industries Inc. vs. AIG Commercial Insurance Company of Canada

      Mr. Justice Luc Lefebvre of the Superior Court dismissed an action brought by an insured against its excess liability insurer for reimbursement of the amount of $3,520,883.15 that it had to pay with its own funds to settle legal actions brought against it in United States by American companies. In the matter of Tembec Industries Inc. v. AIG Commercial Insurance Company of Canada (2013 QCCS 592), Tembec had made a voluntary recall of its products which contained melamine. Several American companies thereafter instituted actions in damages with respect to this recall, including punitive damages, the latter being excluded under Tembec’s primary and excess policies. The total amount of these law suits exceeded the limits of the primary liability policy. Both the primary liability insurer and AIG, the excess liability insurer (represented by Ronald W. Silverson and Amélie Thériault), invoked, among others, exclusions concerning the recall of products. During voluntary mediation sessions in Colorado, the primary liability insurer of Tembec undertook to pay the limits under its policy to settle the various American lawsuits. AIG accepted to contribute to the settlements of these actions but for amounts which were below what was being sought by the complainants. Unsatisfied with this situation, Tembec settled the actions with its own funds and thereafter sued AIG for reimbursement, alleging, among other grounds, its duty to settle the claims in the best interests of its insured and the absence of good faith on the part of AIG. Moreover, Tembec alleged that the amounts that it had to pay to settle the lawsuits were reasonable in the circumstances. The Court held that AIG acted in good faith. According to the trial judge, the fact that Tembec was exposed to significant non-covered risks certainly did not oblige AIG to pay for these non-covered risks, or that it had to increase its settlement offer to an amount over and above what it considered reasonable in order to convince the third party to renounce to claims which were not covered under its policy, such as punitive damages. The judgment was appealed by Tembec.

  • 2012
    • 23-10-2012 Brown et al. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters and al.
    • Close

      23-10-2012 Brown et al. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters and al.

      Mr. Justice Michel Déziel of the Superior Court granted a Motion to Dismiss presented by Liberty International Underwriters Canada (represented by Ronald W. Silverson) in the case of Brown et al. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters et al. (2012 QCCS 5231). Liberty had been sued in its capacity as professional liability insurer of a securities broker who would have acted fraudulently in respect of certain investors. The coverage provided under the policy issued by Liberty was subject to the condition precedent that the claim be “first made against the insured and reported to the insurer during the policy period”. The Plaintiffs’ “ Motion for Permission to Institute a Class Action” did not allege that condition had been met. In the absence of such an allegation, the Motion was dismissed before the hearing on certification. In addition, the Court rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that non-compliance with that condition precedent could not be urged against a third party such as the Plaintiffs because it contravened art. 2502 C.C.Q. which provides that a liability insurer cannot invoke facts which occur after the loss to deny coverage to a third party. The judgment was not appealed.

    • 04-07-2012 ACE-INA Insurance and Nexans Canada Inc. vs. Clarke Transport Inc. vs. Lazer Transport Inc. and Markell Compagnie d’assurance du Canada
    • Close

      04-07-2012 ACE-INA Insurance and Nexans Canada Inc. vs. Clarke Transport Inc. vs. Lazer Transport Inc. and Markell Compagnie d’assurance du Canada

      One of the more contentious trucking cargo liability issues in the Province of Quebec over the last number of years has been the defence of armed robbery hijackings. Traditionally, in the Province of Quebec, Courts have been reticent to apply this defence which is the force majeure defence when there has been an element of fault on the part of the driver. Therefore, the transporters would often be found liable. In this case, the shipper Nexans had put into place very strict rules, one of which was calling in on a regular basis to the dispatch. These rules were not all followed and the truck was hijacked, but the Court held that their breach was not causal and that the theft could, therefore, not have been avoided. The action was dismissed against the transporter Clarke Transport, which was represented by Michael Goodhue.

  • 2011
    • 31-03-2011 Bourkas et Lazaris v. Gidal Construction Inc. and Bureau de la publicité des droits de la circonscription foncière de Montréal
    • Close

      31-03-2011 Bourkas et Lazaris v. Gidal Construction Inc. and Bureau de la publicité des droits de la circonscription foncière de Montréal

      Me Alexandre Janin was able to obtain the radiation of a legal hypothec inscribed without right on his clients' residence in the context of a construction recourse.

      Furthermore, in doing so, he obtained for his clients a monetary compensation for said inscription of a construction legal hypothec that was inscribed illegally and without right.

    • 24-02-2011 Promutuel Portneuf-Champlain, Société mutuelle d'assurance générale v. Venmar Ventilation Inc. and Fasco Industries Inc.
    • Close

      24-02-2011 Promutuel Portneuf-Champlain, Société mutuelle d'assurance générale v. Venmar Ventilation Inc. and Fasco Industries Inc.

      In the context of his usual mandates to represent manufacturers, Attorney Alexandre Janin successfully obtained a judgment confirming a certain jurisprudence to the effect that an expert report must be filed before the defendants are compelled to answer.

      More precisely, the Honourable Jacques Babin of the Superior Court rendered a judgement compelling plaintiff to file its expert report since such an expert report was required to meet its burden of proof and thus such proof would ultimately be filed into the court record.

      As mentioned above, this decision confirms the right of a defendant, such as a manufacturer, to receive copy of an expert report detailing the product's alleged defect before being compelled to begin its judicial investigation in order to file its defence.

  • 2010
    • 26-10-2010 AVIATION/LIABILITY OF TENANT FOR FIRE DAMAGES/BURDEN OF PROOF
    • Close

      26-10-2010 AVIATION/LIABILITY OF TENANT FOR FIRE DAMAGES/BURDEN OF PROOF

      On October 26, 2010, the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by the Defendants Northwest Airlines and its liability insurer from a judgment rendered in December 2008 by the Superior Court condemning the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiffs, the property insurers of Montreal's Trudeau International Airport as well as a neighboring tenant of Northwest Airlines, Air Canada, and its property insurer, damages in the amount of $835,538.00 caused by a fire which originated in the premises leased by Northwest Airlines in the Airport office building.

      The Plaintiffs (represented by Ronald W. Silverson and Pierre-Etienne Lucier) alleged that the fire was caused by a cigarette discarded by an employee of Northwest Airlines in a waste paper basket shortly before she left the office. She was the only person working in the office on the morning of the fire. Smoking was prohibited in the building and the premises. The employee admitted to having smoked several cigarettes in the office but testified that the last cigarette had been fully extinguished and she had not thrown the butt into the basket. The fire was detected approximately 20 minutes after the employee had left the office and locked the door.

      Plaintiffs' expert excluded arson and an electrical defect and concluded that a smoker's article was the probable cause. Defendants' expert, who, unlike Plaintiff's expert, had never visited the scene of the fire, stated that the cause of the fire was unknown and that an electrical defect could not be excluded as a possible cause of the fire. However, in cross-examination, the Defendants' expert conceded that if arson and an electrical defect were excluded, a possible cause was a fire in the basket.

      Mr. Justice Jean-Pierre Senécal of the Superior Court held in first instance that, where there is no direct proof of the cause of a fire, it can be established by presumptions of fact if such are serious, specific and consistent. The Plaintiffs had the burden of proving the probable cause and not just a possible cause or the most likely of several possible causes. The cause of the fire can also be established by the elimination process, such that when other possible causes are eliminated and there remains only one possible cause, the latter constitutes the probable cause. He held that there were serious, specific and consistent presumptions that the fire started in the basket and that the cause was a smoker's article. Moreover, the elimination process excluded any other cause well beyond the balance of probabilities.

      While the Judge stated that he had no doubt that the employee testified in good faith, it was not necessary in his view to conclude that she lied to arrive at the conclusion that the fire was caused by her cigarette.

      The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed no manifest and determinative error which justified the reversal of the judgment.

    • 26-08-2010 Bombardier Produits Récréatifs c. Les Entreprises G.Y.C. et Les Services d’Assurances Transcan et Kingsway Compagnie d’Assurances Générales
    • Close

      26-08-2010 Bombardier Produits Récréatifs c. Les Entreprises G.Y.C. et Les Services d’Assurances Transcan et Kingsway Compagnie d’Assurances Générales

      Transportation: Plaintiff Bombardier Produits Récréatifs instituted an Action against the Defendants claiming the value of a shipment of seadoos stolen in transit.

      Me Carmine Iovino successfully pleaded that Bombardier Produits Récréatifs did not have the legal interest to sue since it had sold the recreational vehicles to a third party on the basis of an F.O.B. sale at the time of shipment. The Quebec Court of Appeal overturned an earlier judgment condemning Kingsway to pay $151,820.85.

    • 23-06-2010 Huot c. Camping Lac des Cyprès 1998 inc.
    • Close

      23-06-2010 Huot c. Camping Lac des Cyprès 1998 inc.

      Attorney Alexandre Janin has successfully defended an important claim for bodily injury in the context of an accident that occurred in a family camping area. More precisely, Plaintiff was claiming against the camping in issue damages following the alleged faulty surveillance of a lifeguard. Plaintiff alleged that the fault of the lifeguard is what caused his injuries whilst using a waterslide.

      The Honourable Justice Yves Tardif of the Superior Court for the district of St-François rather decided that there was no causal link between any such alleged fault of the camping in issue and the damages claimed by Plaintiff. The camping was therefore entirely exonerated of the claim presented by Plaintiff in this matter.

    • 17-03-2010 Compagnie canadienne d'assurances générales Lombard c. Davignon
    • Close

      17-03-2010 Compagnie canadienne d'assurances générales Lombard c. Davignon

      The Court of Québec rendered a judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs, represented by Andrée-Ann Robert, against the tenant of a condo unit, following a water damage in the condo unit of Lombard's insured. The owner of the condo unit had testified that the water damage did not come from her unit, neighbouring the unit of Lombard's insured. The Court instead ruled that the prejudice suffered by the Plaintiffs had its origin in a water leak in the hot water tank of the condo rented by the Defendant, Victor Simeone. The Court granted damages as well as all costs, including the costs of the seizure conducted against the Defendant before the latter presented a motion in revocation of a judgment.

  • 2009
    • 29-10-2009 Manoir Richelieu et Kevin Coutts c. Lloyd's et Schecter
    • Close

      29-10-2009 Manoir Richelieu et Kevin Coutts c. Lloyd's et Schecter

      Coverage: The Quebec Court of Appeal Judges Beauregard, Rochette and Kasirer essentially confirmed the decision rendered by Judge LaRosa of the Superior Court on November 5, 2007 (see below). In this case, which concerned a horseback riding accident, Lloyd’s, represented by Me Philippe Lelarge had successfully invoked an exclusion in its CGL policy concerning the use by or for the Insured of a vehicle or aircraft. The Court of Appeal maintained the validity of the exclusion and commented on the duty to defend and on the defence costs in Appeal. Full text of the judgment.

    • 20-04-2009 Leland Industries v. Sovereign General Insurance Co.
    • Close

      20-04-2009 Leland Industries v. Sovereign General Insurance Co.

      Coverage/ false representation/ reduction of indemnity: In this matter, Sovereign (represented by Me Philippe Lelarge) insured eight buildings owned by Leland across Canada and the United States in virtue of a “blanket” type policy. Following a fire in one of the buildings, the Insurer discovered that the building was not used only for the storage of parts, as stated by the Insured, but also for manufacturing. If the Insurer had known that fact, it was established that it would have charged 40% more by way of premiums for that building. Applying Article 2411 C.C.Q., the indemnity was thus reduced to 71.14% (i.e., 1/1 + 0.40) of the amount claimed. The Insured, dissatisfied with the settlement, sued the Insurer, alleging that the aforementioned calculation should not have been done on the specific premium for the building which was damaged but rather on the total premium for all of the buildings owned by Leland given that it was a “blanket” policy. The ratio between the excess premium and the total premium would have been significantly different from the one for the specific premium for the building and would have resulted in a payment of an indemnity of approximately 98.5% of the loss, a difference of almost $200,000.00. This question had never been dealt with Quebec law. The Honourable Mr. Justice Michel Déziel dismissed the action of Leland on the ground that the word “blanket” did not add anything except a maximum limit. As the Insured’s Broker received a working document indicating the respective premiums for all the risks covered by the contract, the Insured was presumed to have been aware of this information. For the Court this was not a contract with a single premium and the Insured’s argument was unfounded. Full text of the judgment

    • 15-04-2009 Iman Nosseir v. Vacances Transat Holidays Inc. and Sea Pro Divers S.A. and Occidental Grant Punta Cana Hotel
    • Close

      15-04-2009 Iman Nosseir v. Vacances Transat Holidays Inc. and Sea Pro Divers S.A. and Occidental Grant Punta Cana Hotel

      Motion to Dismiss / international jurisdiction of Quebec Courts: On April 15, 2009, the Honourable Mr. Justice Gilles Hébert maintained a Motion to Dismiss presented by the Defendant Sea Pro Divers S.A. (represented by Me Pierre-Étienne Lucier) on the basis of absence of jurisdiction of Quebec Courts. Iman Nosseir sued Sea Pro Divers S.A. as well as the other Defendants following an accident which occurred on a beach in the Dominican Republic. The Plaintiff alleged that she was hit a motor boat owned by Sea Pro Divers S.A. and that she suffered serious injuries. She claimed $203,596.91. The Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Dominican Republic and in Quebec. Sea Pro Divers S.A., which was sued on the basis of its extra-contractual liability, was neither domiciled nor resident in Quebec and did not carry on business in Quebec. The Plaintiff relied on Article 3148 (3) of the Civil Code of Quebec which states that the Quebec Courts have jurisdiction where damage was suffered in Quebec. Iman Nosseir claimed to have suffered damages in Quebec since she was hospitalized there and suffered the consequences of her accident in Quebec. After a detailed study of the jurisprudence, Judge Hébert accepted the arguments pleaded by Me Pierre-Étienne Lucier and granted the Motion to Dismiss the action. Mr. Justice Hébert concluded that had he accepted the argument of the Plaintiff, that would have had the effect of granting to any Quebec citizen the right to sue in Quebec for bodily injuries suffered anywhere in the world.

    • 12-03-2009 AXA Assurances Inc. et al c. Plomberie Bourque et Fournier, Gary Oswald et Compagnie Canadienne D'Assurances Générales Lombard
    • Close

      12-03-2009 Royal & SunAlliance du Canada Société d’Aassurances vs. Markel Compagnie d’Assurance du Canada and Transport QUIK-X

      Transportation:: On March 12, 2009, the Québec Court of Appeal dealt with several appeals in a trucking cargo claim governed by Québec law. The Court of Appeal analysed the method of calculation of the value of a load. Michael Goodhue acted on behalf of Markel compagnie d’assurance du Canada and Transport Quik-X Inc.

    • 30-01-2009 AXA Assurances Inc. et al. v. Plomberie Bourque et Fournier, Gary Oswald and Compagnie Canadienne d'Assurances Générales Lombard
    • Close

      30-01-2009 AXA Assurances Inc. et al. v. Plomberie Bourque et Fournier, Gary Oswald and Compagnie Canadienne d'Assurances Générales Lombard

      Builders' risk insurance policy/Subcontractor as unnamed insured:By judgment dated January 30, 2009 in the above matter, Mr. Justice Martin Castonguay of the Superior Court for the District of Montreal dismissed a subrogation action brought against the Defendants (represented by Ronald W. Silverson) pursuant to a Builders' Risk insurance policy on the ground that the Defendant plumbing subcontractor and its employee were "unnamed insureds" under the AXA policy and therefore no subrogation recourse could be brought against them nor their liability insurer Lombard, even if the damages to a construction project were caused by the negligence of that subcontractor. The Declarations page of the Policy designated only the general contractor/promoter Beau Design as the "Named Insured". There was no "Additional Insureds" provision in the Policy. The "property insured" clause covered property of others to the extent that its value was included in the limits of the Policy. The contract between Beau Design and Plomberie Bourque et Fournier provided that Beau Design was to maintain insurance on the property of the subcontractor until the contract price was paid in full. The Plaintiffs argued that there was no proof of any intent to have the subcontractor covered under the AXA Policy. The Court applied the case law that holds that given the nature and purposes of a Builders' Risk policy subcontractors are to be considered "unnamed Insureds" by "necessary implication". It also held that the general contractor's obligation to take out insurance covering the unpaid property of the subcontractor resulted in the latter becoming an "unnamed insured".

  • 2008
    • 18-12-2008 CGU Compagnie d'Assurance et al. c. Gilles Malo Inc. c. Toitures Mauriciennes (1982) Inc. et al.
    • Close

      18-12-2008 CGU Compagnie d'Assurance et al. c. Gilles Malo Inc. c. Toitures Mauriciennes (1982) Inc. et al.

      Construction: Dans cette affaire, les demanderesses en subrogation poursuivaient le constructeur Gilles Malo Inc pour $ 750 000 suite à l'effondrement du toit du bâtiment de leur assurée survenu en mars 1997. Malo avait exécuté en 1982 des travaux d'agrandissement sur le bâtiment existant construit en 1972 et utilisant des fermes de toit produites par Toitures Mauriciennes (1982) Inc. La partie demanderesse reprochait à Malo de ne pas s'être assuré en 1982 que le bâtiment de 1972 pourrait recevoir l'agrandissement en question. Malo à son tour, a poursuivi en garantie Toitures Mauriciennes (représentée par Philippe Lelarge) et un autre sous-contracteur qui a fourni la charpente métallique. L'action principale a été rejetée par l'Honorable Juge Claudette Picard au motif que aucun lien continu n'avait été installé par l'assurée des demanderesses sur les fermes de toit en 1972, contrairement aux règles de l'art . Les actions en garantie ont donc été aussi rejetées.

    • 09-04-2008 Delgado v. Canada Post Corporation v. Services d’Entretien Distinction Inc.
    • Close

      09-04-2008 Delgado v. Canada Post Corporation v. Services d’Entretien Distinction Inc.

      Work place accident / Motion to Dismiss: Delgado, while in the employ of Service d’Entretien Distinction (“Distinction”), was seriously injured while he was working in a building belonging to Canada Post Corporation (“CPC”). Having been indemnified by the CSST, he sued CPC for the excess of his claim, namely, more than $1,000,000. CPC then sued Distinction (represented by Me Philippe Lelarge)) in warranty on the grounds that it did not properly train Delgado. A Motion to Dismiss was presented on the grounds that CPC could not do indirectly what Delgado could not do directly, namely, sue his employer Distinction. The Motion was granted by Judge Claudine Roy who was of the view that according to a consistent jurisprudence, in the absence of a contractual provision specifically dealing with an obligation to indemnify, CPC had no recourse against Distinction. She thus dismissed the action. CPC desisted from its Appeal in December 2009. Full text

    • 03-07-2008 Temple Insurance Company v.Construction APS 2000 Inc.
    • Close

      03-07-2008 Temple Insurance Company v.Construction APS 2000 Inc.

      Builders' risk/Subrogation: In an oral judgment rendered from the bench on July 3, 2008, Mr. Justice William Fraiberg of the Quebec Superior Court dismissed an action taken by Temple Insurance Company ("Temple") against Construction APS 2000 Inc. ("APS"), a subcontractor, and the latter's liability insurer, Lombard of Canada , both represented by Ronald W. Silverson, in respect of damages which occurrred during a renovation project at a hospital in Trois-Rivières' Quebec. Temple had issued separate builders' risk policies for two phases (known as Lot 3A and Lot 3B) of the project. Under each of the two policies the subcontractors, including APS, were "additional insureds". There was an express renunciation of subrogation clause in both policies. While performing work under its Lot 3B subcontract, APS allegedly improperly relocated a water pipe which eventually disconnected and caused flooding damage to property covered under the Lot 3A builders' risk policy. Work under the Lot 3A contract had not then been completed. After indemnifying its insured under the policy issued for the Lot 3A contract, Temple instituted an action against APS and Lombard and asserted that it was subrogated against APS, nothwithstanding that it was an additional insured under both of Temple's policies, because the alleged fault was committed during the Lot 3B contract and not the Lot 3A contract.APS and Lombard contended that 1) as a matter of recognized insurance principles, Temple could not be subrogated against its own insured APS, regardless of where the alleged fault occurred; 2) there was an express renunciation set forth in the policies in favour of all parties insured thereunder; and 3) in its contract with the hospital the general contractor had undertaken to provide insurance coverage in favour of the subcontractors.That undertaking constituted a waiver of subrogation against those subcontractors which was opposable to Temple.The parties agreed to submit the subrogation issue to the Court prior to trial by way of a joint "Motion for a Decision upon a Question of Law" pursuant to art. 448 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Justice Fraiberg maintained the aforementioned arguments of the Defendants and noted that APS benefitted from the express waiver of subrogation regardless of wherever its fault occurred, even one committed off of the insured site.

    • 18-04-2008 Centre de Ski Mont-Rigaud v. Clifford Wood
    • Close

      18-04-2008 Centre de Ski Mont-Rigaud v. Clifford Wood

      Sports liability: On April 18, 2008, the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Judges Otis, Pelletier and Bich) unanimously maintained the Appeal from a judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Brian Riordan of the Superior Court for the District of Beauharnois. Mr. Justice Riordan had granted the action brought by the Respondent Wood against the Centre de Ski Mont-Rigaud (represented by P.Claude Laporte) following an injury suffered when he hit the post of a fence which sectioned off the ski hill area.

      The Court of Appeal commented firstly that “the sport of alpine skiing or snowboarding is properly considered to be an activity having inherent risks” and added that “consequently, skiers and snowboarders must assume the existence of these risks before undertaking the practice of their sport”. The Court specified that sportsmen accept only those risks which are foreseeable, reasonable and inherent to the activity and not unreasonable or abnormal risk having no connection with the practice of their sport.

      With respect to the distinction made by the Judge of first instance between natural obstacles (snow, cross-trails or tree-lines) and “artificial” obstacles such as those installed by a ski hill such as poles for a fence, the Court of Appeal noted that the Mountain Code of Conduct, which must be respected by all skiers, does not make any distinction between nature or artificial obstacles and that “the vigilance of skiers and snowboarders must always be ever present, regardless of the nature of the obstacles that are confronted”. On this point, the Court concluded that the obstacle in the form of a fence which the Plaintiff hit was within the criteria of normality and foreseeability and that the artificial nature of the obstacle was not relevant.

      With respect to the duty imposed on the ski centre by the Judge of first instance to take reasonable measures to avoid that the layout of the fence not constitute a cause of an accident, the Court of Appeal held that the Judge went too far in concluding that the centre should have padded the poles of the fence to limit the consequences of an accident by the users of the ski trails. The Court of Appeal stated that the only legal obligation for ski centres under the “Regulation respecting passenger ropeways” is to protect the sharp or protruding parts of the pylons when they are situated in an area where skiers circulate, the general obligation of ski centres only being to post warnings of the presence of certain objects on the trails.

    • 06-02-2008 De Melo v. Souscripteurs du Lloyd’s et le Bureau provincial d’expertise en sinistres Inc.
    • Close

      06-02-2008 De Melo v. Souscripteurs du Lloyd’s et le Bureau provincial d’expertise en sinistres Inc.

      Insurance coverage / evaluation of the indemnity. The Plaintiffs/Insureds invoked the benefit of a replacement value endorsement. In fact, a fire led to the total loss of their building. Having received the replacement cost from Lloyd’s, the Plaintiffs/Insureds invoked the fact that they should also have received the benefit of the replacement value endorsement which was equivalent to the total amount of the coverage for their insured building. On the other hand, Alexandre Janin , representing Lloyd’s, successfully pleaded that the conditions for the application of this endorsement had not been respected. More particularly, while the Plaintiffs/Insureds had to reconstruct in order to benefit from it, they preferred to sell the land without any reconstruction whatsoever. The Superior Court judgment sided with Lloyd’s by deciding that the replacement value endorsement is only applicable through the interpretation of its terms and conditions. Since the endorsement was judged to be clear and unambiguous, the Superior Court confirmed the condition to the effect that it would only find application if the Plaintiffs/Insureds reconstructed their building. The Plaintiffs’/Insureds’ action was thus dismissed with costs.

    • 05-02-2008 Nick Vernacchia v. Provigo Distribution Inc.
    • Close

      05-02-2008 Nick Vernacchia v. Provigo Distribution Inc.

      Liability/bodily injuries: Plaintiff Nick Vernacchia instituted legal proceedings for an amount of $333,000.00 against Provigo Distribution Inc. following a fall in one of its supermarkets.

      Following proceedings which lasted more than eight years, a judgment was rendered, dismissing all liability on the part of Provigo Distribution Inc.

      Upholding the arguments pleaded by Jean-François Germain, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had failed to prove a fault on the part of Defendant as well as a damage connected to the alleged fall.

  • 2007
    • 27-11-2007 Axa Assurances v. Regulvar Inc and Lombard du Canada
    • Close

      27-11-2007 Axa Assurances v. Regulvar Inc and Lombard du Canada

      Subrogation/unnamed insured: AXA Assurances Inc.and its insured, Construction de la Croisette Inc., the general contractor for renovation work to the municipal library in Rosemère, Quebec, instituted an action against Regulvar Inc. and its liability insurer, Lombard Canada ( both represented by Ronald Silverson) , for fire damages allegedly caused by a defective triac manufactured by Regulvar and installed in the library. AXA purported to be subrogated in the rights of its insured, the general contractor, pursuant to an indemnity paid under a builders' risk insurance policy in which the only named insured was the Co-Plaintiff Construction de la Croisette Inc. The latter claimed the deductible it assumed under that policy.The Plaintiffs alleged that Regulvar was liable as the manufacturer of the purportedly defective product. Pursuant to an examination on discovery of the general contractor, it was revealed that 1) Regulvar was, in fact, a subcontractor of Construction de la Croisette for the project and not only supplied certain materials, including the triac in issue, but also installed them; and 2) under the terms of its construction contract with the Owner of the project, the general contractor had undertaken to subscribe to a builders' risk insurance policy covering the interests of, among others, the subcontractors. Neither of these circumstances were alleged by the Plaintiffs in the action. Mr. Justice Claude Larouche of the Quebec Superior Court maintained the Motion to Dismiss presented on behalf of Regulvar and Lombard under arts. 75.1 and 165.4 C.C.P., holding that, given the nature of the builders' risk policy, Regulvar was to be considered an unnamed insured under the policy and that consequently, AXA could not be subrogated against its own insured. Moreover, the undertaking by the general contractor to obtain an insurance policy covering the interests of its subcontractors constitutes a renunciation to pursue any recourse against the subcontractors for damages to the insured project, even those caused by the negligence of any subcontractor."

    • 05-11-2007 Schecter v. Manoir Richelieu and Kevin Coutts v. Lloyd’s
    • Close

      05-11-2007 Schecter v. Manoir Richelieu and Kevin Coutts v. Lloyd’s

      Coverage/sports liability : In this unusual case, Coutts provided horseback riding services to the Manoir Richelieu for its hotel clients and had obtained a liability insurance policy from Lloyd’s (represented by Philippe Lelarge) for its operations. In July 2002, the Plaintiff Schecter had reserved an outing of one hour with the hotel, without knowing that the services were to be provided by Coutts. She fell at the end of the session, and suffered severe back injuries. Her version was that her fall was due to a helicopter which had flown over the group at a low level, which frightened the horses. It so happened that the helicopter had been requisitioned by Coutts to look for a lost horse. Coutts claimed that the fall was caused rather by the inexperience and the lack of discipline of the Plaintiff and he also argued acceptance of risks. The Manoir Richelieu sued Lloyd’s in warranty and the latter invoked the standard “aircraft” exclusion to deny coverage.

      In her judgment, the Honourable Judge La Rosa concluded that the helicopter was the effective cause of the fall and condemned Coutts to indemnify the Plaintiff for more than $200,000.00. She also condemned the Manoir Richelieu on the grounds it had lead the Plaintiff to believe that it was the provider of the horseback riding services. However, the Court rejected the warranty action against Lloyd’s, the aircraft exclusion being clear and applicable in the circumstances, since even if Coutts was not piloting the aircraft, it was being used for his purposes.

    • 17-10-2007 9123-9947 QUÉBEC INC. V. FPC MULTI-TECH SERVICES INC.
    • Close

      17-10-2007 9123-9947 QUÉBEC INC. V. FPC MULTI-TECH SERVICES INC.

      Contractual liability: Plaintiff 9123-9947 Québec Inc. instituted proceedings against F.P.C. Multi-Tech Services (represented by Stéphanie Lalonde) claiming resolution of the lease of a photocopier leased by the Defendant as well as damages for loss of income. The Honourable Michelle Pauzé accepted the Defendant's position to the effect that the Defendant had leased a good which was, in all likelihood, free of any defect. The Court also granted the amount claimed in the Counterclaim which represented the monthly rental payments which were due by Plaintiff, the whole with costs.

    • 13-09-2007 Pauline Desgroseillers c. Richard Morand et l'Ordre du Barreau du Québec
    • Close

      13-09-2007 Pauline Desgroseillers c. Richard Morand et l'Ordre du Barreau du Québec

      Professionnal liability: Desgroseillers had taken an action for $ 650 000 against her former attorney Morand as well as its liabity insurer, both represented by Philippe lelarge. The trial judge dismissed the action on Feb. 14 2007, on the dubious grounds (not pleaded in defence !) that plaintiff could not simultaneously bring a civil and a disciplinary recourse against her lawyer. Knowing that this judgment was flawed, Morand and the Barreau, following the Appeal brought on by plaintiff, decided to file the entire transcripts of the trial, to show that the action should have been dismissed, though for different reasons. The Court of Appeal, as expected overturned the first instance judgment, but held that plaintiff had not proven the key elements of her action and therefore dismissed the action on those grounds.

    • 06-08-2007 Patrick Simard vs. Air Canada
    • Close

      06-08-2007 Patrick Simard vs. Air Canada

      Aviation Law : The Quebec Superior Court dismissed an Application to Certify a Class Action against Air Canada following the delay of a flight that sat on the tarmac for several hours. The Plaintiff was seeking damages for psychological injury, punitive and exemplary damages, inconvenience and delay. The Court held that since there were no bodily injuries, there was no right of action under both Articles 17 and 19 for damages of a psychological nature., The Court also dismissed the Class Action for damages directly related to delays stating that Class Action is not the appropriate proceeding basing itself on the rules of proportionality found in the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure. Air Canada was represented by Michael Goodhue and Catherine Chaput .

    • 29-05-2007 Paul-Émile Renaud c. Alain Leduc
    • Close

      29-05-2007 Paul-Émile Renaud c. Alain Leduc

      Responsabilité sportive: Le Dr Renaud, expert orthopédiste bien connu des milieux juridiques et représenté par Philippe Lelarge , a subi des blessures sérieuses lors d'une collision avec le défendeur Leduc, survenue le 3 février 2002 à St-Sauveur. Dans sa défense, Leduc prétendait que c'était Renaud qui l'avait frappé. En raison de la localisation des blessures de Renaud dans son dos, la Cour a plutôt retenu la version de ce dernier que c'était Leduc qui avait perdu le contrôle et l'avait frappé et elle lui a accordé $ 47.500.

    • 28-05-2007 Plourde vs. Service aérien F.B.O. Inc.
    • Close

      28-05-2007 Plourde vs. Service aérien F.B.O. Inc.

      Aviation law: The Quebec Court of Appeal rendered an important judgment on the interpretation to be given to Article 17 of the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air. An aircraft carrying passengers was forced to land when one of its engines caught fire. None of the passengers were physically harmed. A representative attempted to certify a Class Action in the Province of Quebec against the airline claiming damages for delay but also psychological damages. The Defendant airline represented by Michael Goodhue and Catherine Chaput had successfully argued before the Quebec Superior Court in 2005 that the Class Action should not be certified for psychological damages when there had been no physical injury. The Plaintiff appealed this decision and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused to certify the Class Action for psychological damages.

    • 18-05-2007 142071 Canada Inc (Les Conteneurs D.M.L.)c. Pneus Toyo Canada
    • Close

      18-05-2007 142071 Canada Inc (Les Conteneurs D.M.L.)c. Pneus Toyo Canada

      Liability of the Depository: After having delivered a container of tires to the warehouse operated by Toyo (represented par Benoit Chartier) , DML’s chassis, equipment and the said container were stolen. Alleging that Toyo was fully liable for the stolen goods, DML is claiming an amount of $33,500 from it, alleging that Toyo failed in its obligations. By applying the provisions relevant to matters involving deposits (Art. 2280 C.C.Q. and following), the Judge concluded that Toyo did not commit any fault that would have led to the theft of the goods and that it acted with prudence and diligence. The Judge notably upheld the version of Toyo’s representative over that of DML, Toyo’s version being to the effect that before the theft occurred, Toyo had advised DML to come and get its container that had been emptied of its contents. Knowing the premises, DML knowingly left the container and its chassis in an unsupervised and unprotected courtyard for the entire weekend and thus DML voluntarily assumed a risk for which it must bear the consequences. Action dismissed with costs

    • 07-05-2007 David Clark c. 4107781 CANADA INC. et als. et Municipalité de Wentworth-Nord et als. c. la Mutuelle des Municipalités du Québec (« MMQ »)
    • Close

      07-05-2007 David Clark c. 4107781 CANADA INC. et als. et Municipalité de Wentworth-Nord et als. c. la Mutuelle des Municipalités du Québec (« MMQ »)

      Couverture: Dans le cadre d’un recours collectif, plusieurs parties ont été poursuivies en dommages-intérêts suite à des travaux qui ont eu lieu sur le lac St-François Xavier, travaux qui auraient en quelque sorte « lessivé » en aval le fond du lac. Il en aurait résulté des inconvénients pour les résidents des lacs tributaires.

      Il fallait décider si la Mutuelle des Municipalités du Québec (MMQ) avait l’obligation de défendre la Municipalité de Wentworth-Nord et ses employés compte tenu, entre autre, de certaines allégations de la procédure d’autorisation qui laissaient à entendre que la réclamation concernait des dommages résultant de la pollution du lac St-François Xavier. La police d’assurance en cause comprenait, entre autre, une exclusion portant sur la pollution. Cette dernière était définie comme étant « l’émission, le rejet, l’échappement ou la dispersion de substances solides, liquides ou gazeuses, que ce soit dans l’eau, au sol ou dans l’atmosphère ». L’Honorable Alary a fait une révision de la jurisprudence pertinente en matière d’interprétation des polices d’assurance et elle a conclu qu’en l’instance la requête « Wellington » présentée par les requérants devait être accueillie sauf, bien entendu, en ce qui a trait aux dommages carrément exclus comme les dommages exemplaires. Elle a en conséquence ordonné à la MMQ de prendre le fait et cause de ses assurés et de leur rembourser les frais engagés à ce jour.

    • 19-04-2007 Joseph Gutstadt c. Air Canada and Captain Randy Gouge and Benoît Plamondon
    • Close

      19-04-2007 Joseph Gutstadt c. Air Canada and Captain Randy Gouge and Benoît Plamondon

      Transport : The Plaintiffs were travelling from Toronto to Kingston, Jamaïca when the male passenger became involved in a verbal altercation with the passenger agent of the Defendant Airline. A decision was taken to disembark him at a stopover prior to the final destination. His spouse decided to disembark along with him. Both instituted actions against the Airline, the Captain and the passenger agent. The Defendants were represented by Michael Goodhue and Stéphanie Lalonde . The actions were dismissed, the Court finding that the disruptive passenger was properly disembarked and that his spouse had disembarked on her own accord..

    • 11-04-2007 Optimum Société d’Assurance Inc. vs. Plomberie Raymond Lemelin Inc.
    • Close

      11-04-2007 Optimum Société d’Assurance Inc. vs. Plomberie Raymond Lemelin Inc.

      Liability - Waiver of subrogation : Optimum was claiming from Plomberie Raymond Lemelin (represented by Jean-François Germain) an amount of $110,000.00 for damages sustained to a building owned by its Insured, General Contractor TB Construction Enr., the whole on the basis of a legal subrogation in virtue of a “Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy - Extended Form”. In its claim, Plaintiff reproached Lemelin for a faulty installation of the plumbing system in a four dwelling building which resulted in a leak and caused the alleged damages. Defendant’s Plea was based on two aspects, namely Plaintiff’s waiver of its subrogation rights against third parties having participated in the work on the construction site and, of course, the absence of Defendant’s fault. The Superior Court concluded that even though the Defendant was not a Named Insured in the Insurance Policy, this type of insurance which covers goods protects against the risk of damages caused by the work, can be subscribed for the benefit of third parties who are deemed to hold an insurance interest in the work. Basing itself on the teachings of the Supreme Court as well as the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Court concludes that since the Defendant has an insurable interest in the goods, it thus becomes an Insured under the terms of the Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy. Therefore, the waiver of subrogation must find application and Optimum Société d’Assurance Inc.’s recourse against Lemelin must be dismissed.

    • 13-03-2007 Louis Blanchette c. Corporation Municipale de Sutton c. Lombard Canada
    • Close

      13-03-2007 Louis Blanchette c. Corporation Municipale de Sutton c. Lombard Canada

      Responsabilité municipale/Couverture d'assurance : Blanchette réclamait de Sutton la somme de 178 749, 65$ pour les dommages causés à sa maison en construction parce que Sutton aurait omis de prolonger son permis de construction pour une période additionnelle ce qui lui aurait permis de terminer les travaux avant que la maison ne soit endommagée. Sutton a poursuivi en garantie Lombard (représentée par Benoit Chartier) puisque celle-ci refusait de prendre son fait et cause au motif que la réclamation de Blanchette ne lui avait pas été présentée durant la période de couverture d'assurance et que la clause de prolongation de couverture de 60 jours ne pouvait s'appliquer. La couverture d'assurance se terminait le 31 décembre 2003; la police ne couvrait que les " réclamations présentées et déclarées " pendant la période d'assurance ou au plus, pendant la période de prolongation de 60 jours à condition que la réclamation ait été présentée à l'Assuré et à l'Assureur pour la première fois dans ce délai de 60 jours. L'assureur fut avisé pendant ce délai de 60 jours pour la première fois par réception d'une copie de l'action du demandeur. Toutefois, Lombard a mis en preuve que pendant la période de couverture d'assurance, soit avant l'échéance du 31 décembre 2003, Sutton avait reçu plusieurs lettres de Blanchette indiquant clairement son intention de la poursuivre en dommages. Dès lors, lorsque l'action fut signifiée après le 31 décembre 2003, Sutton ne pouvait prétendre qu'elle était avisée pour la première fois de la réclamation de Blanchette et qu'elle pouvait bénéficier de l'extension de 60 jours. Les lettres reçues avant l'expiration de la période d'assurance étaient suffisamment précises pour constituer des " réclamations présentées " au sens de la police; Sutton devait alors les rapporter pour bénéficier de l'assurance-responsabilité.

      Action accueillie partiellement en faveur du demandeur contre Sutton pour 79 385$; action en garantie contre Lombard rejetée, avec dépens. Léo Daigle, Cour Supérieure.

    • 27-02-2007 Sécurité Nationale Compagnie d’Assurances v. Municipalité de Sainte-Martine
    • Close

      27-02-2007 Sécurité Nationale Compagnie d’Assurances v. Municipalité de Sainte-Martine

      Municipal law: Plaintiff, Sécurité Nationale, sued the Municipality of Sainte-Martine (represented by Stéphanie Lalonde ) for an amount of $19,331.13 as a result of water damages caused to the residence of their Insureds, Daniel Moquin and Carole Brazeau.The Plaintiff alleged that these damages were caused by the Defendant’s ineffective or inadequate water evacuation system.The Honourable Diane Quenneville upheld Defendant’s position to the effect that Plaintiff did not fulfill its burden of proof of establishing that the damages were effectively caused by the autonomous act of an item that was under the care, custody and control of the Municipality of Sainte-Martine.The action was thus dismissed with costs.

    • 29-01-2007 Groupe Estrie-Richelieu v. Ripe Quebec Inc.
    • Close

      29-01-2007 Groupe Estrie-Richelieu v. Ripe Quebec Inc.

      Liability/Fire : The Plaintiffs Groupe Estrie-Richelieu and Axa Assurances Inc. sued Ripe Québec Inc. and its Insurer Lloyd's, represented by Philippe Lelarge , for $340,772.64 and $143, 631.42 respectively, following a fire which occurred at the farm of their Insured on June 1, 2001. The Plaintiffs claimed that the fire was due to the delivery of wood shavings by the Defendants, approximately 9 hours before the discovery of the fire, which caused a spark or a discharge of static electricity. The Honourable Judge Denis Jacques instead retained the thesis of the Defendants that the fire was due to contact between the wood shavings and an electric light bulb situated in the storage room which was left on by the owner, even though the latter denied that fact. Moreover, the Court concluded that the wood shavings delivery person did not have the duty to advise the owner in that regard, the danger being well known. Complete judgment.

  • 2006
    • 06-12-2006 Galerie de la Céramique v. Ville de Repentigny
    • Close

      06-12-2006 Galerie de la Céramique v. Ville de Repentigny

      Municipal Law : The Plaintiff sued the City (represented by Benoit Chartier ) for damages caused by water infiltration on November 25, 2004. A notice was sent to the City on November 26, 2004 by the owner of the building in which the Plaintiff leased its premises. The Plaintiff itself did not send a notice required under the Cities and Towns Act (Article 586), as it contended that the owner of the building was acting as its representative and that the owner's notice of November 26, 2004 availed in its favour. The tenant alleged in addition that it was not made aware of damages until January 6, 2005. Its action was stamped on July 5, 2005. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss of the City on the basis of prescription. As the Plaintiff pleaded that the notice of November 26, 2004 constituted the notice it was required to provide under the Cities and Towns Act, it could not at the same time contend that it was only on January 6, 2005 that its right of action arose. The Court took as the starting point for the calculation of the delay of six (6) months under article 586 the date of the demand letter of November 26, 2004, which document was moreover produced as an Exhibit by the Plaintiff in support of its action. Verbal judgment. Court No. 705-22-006951-055.

    • 01-11-2006 Pierre Fauteux v. Serge Garneau
    • Close

      01-11-2006 Pierre Fauteux v. Serge Garneau

      Professional Liability: Fauteux sued pharmacist Garneau, represented by Philippe Lelarge , for $479,670.00 on the grounds that when he purchased and paid for the three medications prescribed by his doctor, he also received three other medications for another patient. The Plaintiff contended that the combined effect of the six medications that he took lead to a stay in psychiatry and the break up with his spouse. Judge Benoit Emery preferred Garneau's version that Fauteux had wrongfully taken from the cashier a package which was on the counter. The Judge also concluded that a reasonable person would have realized his error. There was thus no fault committed. Moreover, he concluded that there was no causal link, the break up of Fauteux with his wife having taken place prior to the consumption of the medications which had caused Fauteux' s depression. Action dismissed.

    • 31-10-2006 Manac/Nortex et al. vs BI&I Inc (Court of Appeal)
    • Close

      31-10-2006 Manac/Nortex et al. vs BI&I Inc (Court of Appeal)

      Products liability: P.Claude Laporte , Philippe Lelarge and Benoit Chartier successfully pleaded an important products liability case on behalf of our client The Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company of Canada ("BI&I"). In a judgment of more than 70 pages dated October 31, 2006, the Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissed the appeals brought against the decision of the Superior Court of September 26, 2003 which maintained a subrogation action of BI&I against the Defendants Manac and SIA. The current value of the judgment, including interest, is slightly over $21,000,000. The matter deals with the liability of a manufacturer of a new wall covering material, called Arcoplast, which was represented by its distributor as being non-combustible. The two courts come to the conclusion that Arcoplast was developped in an ad hoc fashion, was not properly tested and contributed to the propagation of a fire which should have remained confined.

    • 19-10-2006 Markel Compagnie d’Assurance du Canada v. Compagnie d’Assurance CGU du Canada ltée, (Court of Appeal).
    • Close

      19-10-2006 Markel Compagnie d’Assurance du Canada v. Compagnie d’Assurance CGU du Canada ltée, (Court of Appeal).

      Coverage: Michael Goodhue and Carmine Iovino successfully pleaded an automobile insurance coverage case on behalf of Markel Insurance Company of Canada. The Court of Appeal overturned an earlier judgement condemning Markel to pay $ 1 200 000. Complete text.

    • 06-10-2006 Monique Desjardins v. Les Placements Rockhill Ltée
    • Close

      06-10-2006 Monique Desjardins v. Les Placements Rockhill Ltée

      Owner-Landlord Liability : Rockhill (represented by Benoit Chartier ) was sued by one of its tenants who claimed that jewellery having a value of approximately $60,000 was stolen from her apartment during painting work which was being done by a subcontractor of Rockhill. The Court dismissed the action because the Defendant established that it did not commit any fault in retaining the services of a reliable contractor, which it had worked with for over 20 years and against which no complaint had ever been made by the tenants. Moreover, there was continual surveillance on a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week basis and no theft problem had ever arisen previously in the Rockhill apartments. In addition, there was no proof that the subcontractor stole the jewellery. There is no presumption of liability in case of theft against the owner of a residential building according to the rulings of the Court of Appeal. The theft which occurred was thus not foreseeable and there was no basis to trigger the liability of Rockhill, no fault having been proved in this regard. Verbal judgment rendered in Court record no. 500-22-109155-054

    • 29-09-2006 Consul-Tech and General Cable v. Brock Export and Kingsway
    • Close

      29-09-2006 Consul-Tech and General Cable v. Brock Export and Kingsway

      Coverage: Carmine Iovino successfully pleaded a case on behalf of Kingsway General Insurance Company who denied coverage under an unattended vehicle exclusion. The Court had to decide if the Insured had respected a warranty of the insurance policy which provided that cargos of copper had to be under constant surveillance. Mr. Justice Gagnon decided that the Insured did not comply with this warranty and that the Insurer was entitled to invoke the suspension of coverage set out in the insurance policy. Action dismissed.Complete text (pdf).

    • 06-06-2006 Kosko c. Bijimine et Fonds d'Assurance Responsabilité du Barreau du Québec (Court of Court)
    • Close

      06-06-2006 Kosko c. Bijimine et Fonds d'Assurance Responsabilité du Barreau du Québec (Court of Court)

      Evidence/Privilege: Plaintiff sued defendants represented by Philippe Lelarge on the grounds (amongst others) that attorney Bijimine had not given him adequate advice during a judicial mediation . Plaintiff tried to bring into evidence events which took place during the mediation, on the grounds that the usual principles of privilege did not apply between himself and his attorney. In an elaborate decision, the first on this issue, the Court of Appeal held that this principle was of overriding importance and that the objection to proof should be maintained. Complete text.

    • 20-02-2006 Charles Lemieux and Christine Fedak c. Proslide Technology Inc.
    • Close

      20-02-2006 Charles Lemieux and Christine Fedak c. Proslide Technology Inc.

      Sports liability: The Plaintiffs claimed damages from the Defendant (represented by Carole Samuel)arising from a skiing accident which resulted in the Plaintiff Lemieux suffering a cervical fracture. The Plaintiffs claimed that the fall was due solely to the failure of the Defendant to maintain its runs and to adequately warn users that a part of a run was not maintained. The Superior Court held that the general duty of supervision and of vigilance of a ski centre was one of means and an accessory obligation. The Court concluded that the Defendant, which had installed bamboo poles to warn the users to avoid a part of the run, had fulfilled its general obligations of care and had taken useful precautions in the circumstances. Action dismissed. Complete text.

    • 16-02-2006 S.M.J.C. Transport Inc. c. Compagnie d'assurances Kingsway.
    • Close

      16-02-2006 S.M.J.C. Transport Inc. c. Compagnie d'assurances Kingsway.

      Transportation/coverage : Action by an Insured against its Insurer (represented by Luc Pelletier) following a denial of coverage. The Court had to decide if the Insured had respected a warranty provision of the insurance policy which provided that the load had to be under "constant surveillance". Mr. Justice Tardif decided that the Insured did not comply with this warranty provision and that the Insurer was entitled to invoke the suspension of the coverage set out in the insurance policy. Action dismissed. Complete text.

    • 10-02-2006 Nathalie Brault et al c. Ville de Farnham (2006 QCCS 663)
    • Close

      10-02-2006 Nathalie Brault et al c. Ville de Farnham (2006 QCCS 663)

      Municipal Liability: The City of Farnham (represented by Louis Brien and Claude Laporte) was sued following the drowning of a 10 year old boy in the Yamaska River. The boy gained access to the river from a boat ramp in a municipal park which bordered the river. The Plaintiffs contended that the water attracted the children and that the Plaintiff should have therefore fenced in the bank to secure the premises. The Court concluded that even though the location was the occasion for the drowning, the boat ramp itself was not dangerous but rather the swimming without supervision and contrary to the clear orders of the parents. The Court states that the City is not the insurer of all persons who come onto its territory and that it has no more liability than any other waterfront owner and could not be held liable for failing to fence in the banks. It is also mentioned that the layout of the land bordering the river did not constitute a trap. Action dismissed. Complete text.

    • 30-01-2006 American Home Assurance c.Co.d'assurance générale Lombard
    • Close

      30-01-2006 American Home Assurance c.Co.d'assurance générale Lombard

      Couverture: Appel de American Home contre Lombard et son assurée SOPFEU (représentées par Catherine Chaput). Le jugement de 1ère instance avait condamné American Home à titre d'assureur d'un avion, à indemniser Lombard et SOPFEU suite à son écrasement ayant détruit la console de communication de SOPFEU destinée à coordoner les avions-citerne, lors de combats d'incendies de forêt. American Home avait invoqué diverses exclusions. Appel rejeté.Texte complet

    • 18-01-2006 Jasmin Belhumeur c. Gilbert Inspection (2006 QCCQ 158 )
    • Close

      18-01-2006 Jasmin Belhumeur c. Gilbert Inspection (2006 QCCQ 158 )

      Responsabilité professionnelle: un inspecteur en bâtiment (représenté par Julie Delaney ) retenu par les acheteurs potentiels a été poursuivi par le propriétaire qui prétendait avoir perdu la vente de sa propriété, suite au rapport prétendument erroné de cet inspecteur. Action rejetée.Texte complet

  • 2005
    • 22-12-2005 Rôtisserie Ste-Thérèse inc. c. Ville de Ste-Thérèse
    • Close

      22-12-2005 Rôtisserie Ste-Thérèse inc. c. Ville de Ste-Thérèse

      Municipal Liability : Ville de Ste-Thérèse (represented by Benoît Chartier) was sued for damages by Plaintiff following a four-day interruption of the City's water supply, during which Plaintiff could not operate its business and it is thus claiming for business interruption as well as exemplary damages. The Court exonerated the City since Plaintiff has not established that the City committed any fault in the maintenance of its water system. Furthermore, the repairs to the water main were competed quickly and without delay by the City. The Court also states that citizens must sustain the normal inconveniences of Municipal maintenance work.Complete text

    • 05-12-2005 Gabriel Plourde c. Service Aérien F.B.O. INC. (Skyservice)
    • Close

      05-12-2005 Gabriel Plourde c. Service Aérien F.B.O. INC. (Skyservice)

      Transportation/Class Action: Plourde sought permission to institute a class action on behalf of the passengers of a flight operated by the Defendant (represented by Michael Goodhue and Catherine Chaput). The most important part of the action concerned the psychological damages allegedly suffered. The Defendant succeeded in arguing that only the damages due to delays are compensable, to the exclusion of the psychological damages. Complete text.

    • 02-12-2005 115672 Canada Inc c. Souscripteurs de l'Est(Kingsway)
    • Close

      02-12-2005 115672 Canada Inc c. Souscripteurs de l'Est(Kingsway)

      Coverage: Action by an Insured against its Insurer (represented by Philippe Lelarge) following a denial of coverage. The Insured had made a verbal request to reduce its territorial operation, but no Endorsement had been sent to it at the time of the loss. Action dismissed. Appeal dismissed on April 24 2006. Complete text.

    • 25-08-2005 Sheri Malette v. Boulangeries Weston Québec Limitée
    • Close

      25-08-2005 Sheri Malette v. Boulangeries Weston Québec Limitée

      Product/Manufacturer's Liability : Weston (represented by Benoît Chartier), was sued by Malette following her discovery of a needle between two slices of Weston bread purchased in a grocery store. Even though Plaintiff was not injured in any way, she claimed $15,000 for anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life, trouble and inconvenience for simply finding the needle in the bread. From the perspective of the Consumer Protection Act and Article 1469 C.C.Q., the Court upheld the proof put forth by Weston to the effect that the needle could in no way have resulted from the manufacturing process of the bread. The action was dismissed.

    • 24-08-2005 ABB Inc.et Alstom Canada Inc c. Gan Insurance Company
    • Close

      24-08-2005 ABB Inc.et Alstom Canada Inc c. Gan Insurance Company

      Coverage: The Court of Appeal dismisses Alstom's appeal against Gan (represented by Ron Silverson and François Joubert) in the amount of 17 996 353$ and maintains the decision of Judge Hilton in Superior court, but for different reasons. Effectively, the Court of Appeal applies the exclusion of damages to the Insured's product, namely the Superheater, and the exclusion of the loss of use of the Insured's product, namely the business interruption claimed by Domtar. The Court of Appeal also dismisses Alstom's argument that an exception to the exclusion, to the effect that only the defective parts of the Insured's product are excluded, should apply. Alstom alleged that only the rigid tie welds of the Superheater were defective and should be excluded. The Court of Appeal concludes that the tie welds, which played an essential role and were an integral part of the superheater, cannot be considered as the only defecti

    • 22-08-2005 Monit Properties Inc. c. Services d'immigration Prisma Ltée
    • Close

      22-08-2005 Monit Properties Inc. c. Services d'immigration Prisma Ltée

      Responsabilité contractuelle/locataire-locateur : Monit réclamait des loyers de Prisma laquelle répliqua avec une défense et demande reconventionnelle (Monit étant représentée par Benoît Chartier uniquement pour la demande reconventionnelle vu la couverture d'assurance). Appliquant rigoureusement les clauses d'exonération et d'assurance contenues dans le bail commercial intervenu entre les parties, le Tribunal a rejeté la demande reconventionnelle de Prisma puisque aucune preuve de faute lourde permettant d'écarter les clauses n'avait été faite.

    • 06-07-2005 Jean-Marie Côté c. Me Vincent Karim et Me René Bureau
    • Close

      06-07-2005 Jean-Marie Côté c. Me Vincent Karim et Me René Bureau

      Professional liability: Côte sued the Defendants (represented by Philippe Lelarge) on the ground that due to illness, Me Karim was replaced by Me Bureau for a hearing before the Court of Appeal which he lost. Madame Justice Hélène Poulin concluded that the Defendant had not established the causal link between his damages and the alleged fault. Action dismissed. Complete Text.

    • 06-07-2005 Dubé c. Domaine de Ski Mont-Bruno Inc.
    • Close

      06-07-2005 Dubé c. Domaine de Ski Mont-Bruno Inc.

      Sports liability: Mr. Dubé sued Mont-Bruno (represented by Claude Laporte) for the severe injuries he suffered to his leg from a snowboard accident. The Superior Court confirmed the clearly established principles that the Defendant was not the insurer of the Plaintiff, that the latter had to act prudently and that snowboarding entailed certain inherent dangers that the Plaintiff, an experienced snowboarder, accepted from the start. Action dismissed. Complete text.

    • 05-07-2005 Case known as the "Petit Train du Nord".
    • Close

      05-07-2005 Case known as the "Petit Train du Nord".

      Coverage: Me Laporte represented Tig Insurance Company. In a judgment dated November 30, 2004, the Superior Court granted the action against the M.R.C. and the Attorney General of Quebec but dismissed it against the two snowmobile clubs which were sued and the liability Insurers, including Tig. An Appeal from this decision was filed and several Motions to dismiss the Appeal were presented. The Motions were granted by the Court of Appeal which concluded that the M.R.C. did not have any right of Appeal against the snowmobile clubs and the liability Insurers. Complete text.

    • 30-06-2005 Jean Roussin v. Me Luc Carbonneau
    • Close

      30-06-2005 Jean Roussin v. Me Luc Carbonneau

      Professional liability: Roussin sued Me Carbonneau (represented by Philippe Lelarge) on the basis that he had allowed a wrongful dismissal recourse against the RCMP before the Federal Court to be prescribed. Madam Justice Danielle Grenier concluded that even if there were a fault, the action of the Plaintiff against the RCMP was bound to fail. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 09-06-2005 Laurin v. Centres Commerciaux Régionaux du Québec Ltée
    • Close

      09-06-2005 Laurin v. Centres Commerciaux Régionaux du Québec Ltée

      Fall /automobile accident: The Plaintiff fell on ice in a parking lot belonging to the Defendant (represented by Jean-François Germain). Motion to Dismiss on the ground that it was an automobile accident. Examination of causal link. Motion granted. Complete text

    • 19-05-2005 Denis Doyon v. Université du Québec à Montréal
    • Close

      19-05-2005 Denis Doyon v. Université du Québec à Montréal

      Action for damages: Denis Doyon sued UQAM (represented by Carole Samuel) for having lost two years of his life after failing a graduate program in finance which he took to become a portfolio manager. Mr. Justice Caron declined to find any fault on the part of UQAM for the setbacks of the Plaintiff. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 18-05-2005 Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of Canada c. Bernard Brouillard Ltée et Câbles Systèmes Pirelli Inc.
    • Close

      18-05-2005 Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of Canada v. Brouillard Ltée et Câbles Systèmes Pirelli Inc.

      Action in damages: The Plaintiff sued the Defendants (represented by Carole Samuel) for damages caused by a fire. The Defendants were able to prove that they did not commit any fault and that the cause of the fire was not established. Action dismissed.Complete text

    • 17-05-2005 Lapierre v. Cadillac Fairview v. Empire Maintenance
    • Close

      17-05-2005 Lapierre v. Cadillac Fairview v. Empire Maintenance

      Bodily injuries: Action of the Plaintiff following a fall in a shopping centre (represented by Jean-François Germain). Action in warranty against the maintenance company. The two actions were dismissed. Complete text

    • 13-05-2005 Vivier v. Marquette
    • Close

      13-05-2005 Vivier v. Marquette

      Bodily injuries: The Plaintiff sued her former brother-in-law Marquette (represented by Philippe Lelarge) for serious injuries suffered to her head as a result of a fall at the home of Marquette. A door that she thought led to the wash room, instead opened up on the basement stairs on which she fell. In light of the notion of "trap" and the knowledge of the premises by the Plaintiff, the Court allotted liability of 50% to each party. The Court also considerably reduced the amount claimed, granting a total of $25,000.00 to the Plaintiff. Complete text.

    • 23-03-2005 Richard Daigle et al. v. Me Jacques Forgues
    • Close

      23-03-2005 Richard Daigle et al. v. Me Jacques Forgues

      Professional liability: The Plaintiffs contended that Me Forgues (represented by Philippe Lelarge) did not advise them early on that their recourse against their vendor was likely to fail. The Court, reiterating that the obligation of an attorney is one of means, concluded that there was no fault. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 25-02-2005 Manon Lalumière and Bertrand Bourgeois v. Centre Commercial Les Rivières Ltée and American Home Insurance Co.
    • Close

      25-02-2005 Manon Lalumière and Bertrand Bourgeois v. Centre Commercial Les Rivières Ltée and American Home Insurance Co.

      Fall / bodily injury: The Plaintiffs sued the Defendants (represented by Luc Pelletier) for damages suffered by the Plaintiff Lalumière after falling on an icy parking lot. Mr. Justice Robert Legris was of the opinion that the Defendants did not commit any fault. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 17-02-2005 Société Radio-Canada v. Guitouni (Appeal)
    • Close

      17-02-2005 Société Radio-Canada v. Guitouni (Appeal)

      Special fee: Decision of the Court of Appeal maintaining the decision of the Superior Court granting a special fee of $70,000.00 to the attorneys of Guitouni (represented by Claude Laporte) given the importance and complexity of the matter. Complete text

    • 03-02-2005 Placement Ojeil Inc. v. La Ville de Longueuil
    • Close

      03-02-2005 Placement Ojeil Inc. v. La Ville de Longueuil

      Municipal law/prescription: In this matter, Mr. Justice Louis Lacoursière of the Superior Court of the District of Longueuil confirmed the prescription of six months in an action instituted against a City for property damage. In this case, the Plaintiff sued the City and its Fire Department (represented by Catherine Chaput ) for damages caused by a fire which had occurred almost three years before the institution of the action. On the basis of the Gagnon and Choquette vs. Ville de Montréal and Oppenheim, rendered on February 5, 2004 by Mr. Justice Tellier, the Plaintiff claimed that her recourse was governed by the prescription of three years set out in the Civil Code of Quebec and not by Section 586 of the Cities and Towns Act. Mr. Justice Lacoursière respectfully disagreed with the reasoning of Mr. Justice Tellier and reaffirmed the well-established principle that this type of damages is subject to the short prescription of Section 586 .

    • 12-01-2005 Bell Canada v. Vidéotron Télécom v. Les Lignes Romarc:
    • Close

      12-01-2005 Bell Canada v. Vidéotron Télécom v. Les Lignes Romarc:

      Contractual liability and contract for services : Bell claimed from Vidéotron Télécom (represented by Benoît Chartier) damages following the rupture of cables belonging to it and located in one of its underground conduits. Bell gave Vidéotron Télécom access so that it could install an optic fibre cable. Vidéotron Télécom mandated Romarc to do the work related to installing and connecting the fibre optic cable. In view of the contract for services entered into between Vidéotron Télécom and Romarc, including various exoneration and indemnification clauses, Romarc had to hold Vidéotron Télécom harmless and reimburse Bell for the damages it sustained.Complete text

  • 2004
    • 30-11-2004 File known as the 'Petit train du Nord' (S.C.)
    • Close

      30-11-2004 File known as the 'Petit train du Nord' (S.C.)

      Coverage: Claude Laporte represented TIG Insurance Company, the Insurer of one of the Defendants. The Superior Court maintained the action against the M.R.C. but dismissed it against the two snowmobile clubs sued as well as the liability insurers, including TIG. Complete text

    • 05-10-2004 Les Entreprises Michel Duchesneau c. Gilbert Grondin c. Municipalité de Granby
    • Close

      05-10-2004 Les Entreprises Michel Duchesneau c. Gilbert Grondin c. Municipalité de Granby

      Municipal liability/civil procedure : Duchesneau Inc. sued Grondin, claiming the cost of the work necessitated to move the foundation of a house under construction. Grondin is reproached for having improperly drawn up its positioning plan which caused the Municipality to require the moving of the foundation as it was too close to the backset line to be respected. Grondin instituted a warranty action against the Municipality represented by Benoit Chartier on the grounds that it should have noticed the error in the positioning and not have issued the construction permit as this would have prevented the non-compliant construction. The Municipality presented a Motion to Dismiss the Warranty Action on the grounds that there was no legal connection, either contractual or extra-contractual, between it and Grondin. The Motion was granted and the warranty action against the Municipality was dismissed; the Court stating that Grondin should have proceeded by way of a forced intervention. .Complete text

    • 21-09-2004 Factory Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bernard Gérin-Lajoie et al
    • Close

      21-09-2004 Factory Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bernard Gérin-Lajoie et al

      Prescription / Motion to dismiss: FM added the liability insurer (represented by Benoit Chartier)of a Defendant to a subrogation action more than three years after the loss. FM pleaded that the service of the action against an insured interrupts prescription against its liability insurer since they are solidarily liable. The Court concluded there was no such solidary liability and dismissed the action against Lombard.Complete text

    • 14-09-2004 Bell Canada c. Excavation Daniel Latour inc.
    • Close

      14-09-2004 Bell Canada c. Excavation Daniel Latour inc.

      Extra-contractual liability /excavation work: Bell was claiming an amount from Latour Inc. (represented by Benoit Chartier) for damages allegedly caused to an underground cable belonging to it. When Latour Inc did the clean-up work and layout of the land for one of its clients, an underground cable belonging to Bell was allegedly damaged. No direct proof was presented by Bell to establish that the cable had been damaged by Latour Inc. Only the presence of a backhoe close to the location of the broken cable several days after its discovery caused Bell to institute proceedings against Latour Inc. The action was dismissed because Latour Inc. established that it did not do any work at the exact location of the damaged cable even though it did work on the adjacent land. EYB 2004-70545

    • 27-07-2004 Mastromatteo v. Lombard General Insurance Company
    • Close

      27-07-2004 Mastromatteo v. Lombard General Insurance Company

      Coverage: This judgment arose out of a garnishment served on Lombard (represented by Philippe Lelarge) by the Plaintiff following her dismissal by Lombard's Insured. The Plaintiff claimed that the insurance contract of the insured covered this type of loss. The Superior Court held that the loss was subject to a specific exclusion. It also mentioned that the dismissal was an intentional act and thus not covered according to article 2464 C.C.Q. Claim dismissed. Complete text

    • 18-05-2004 Joseph El-Bayeh v. Me Danielle Oiknine
    • Close

      18-05-2004 Joseph El-Bayeh v. Me Danielle Oiknine

      Professional liability: The Plaintiff sued the Defendant (represented by Philippe Lelarge) on the ground that she purportedly had him subscribe to shares of a company against his will, rendering him ineligible to acquire a contractor's permit from the Régie du Bâtiment. The Court came to the conclusion that the allegation was unfounded. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 11-05-2004 François Berger v. Ville de St-Jean-sur-Richelieu
    • Close

      11-05-2004 François Berger v. Ville de St-Jean-sur-Richelieu

      Arrest/prescription: Motion to Dismiss by the City of St-Jean (represented by Jean-François Germain) on the grounds of the six month prescription set out in Section 586 of the Cities and Towns Act, since the damages claimed were only moral damages. Motion Granted. Complete text

    • 27-02-2004 American Home Insurance v. Camions Maska Inc.
    • Close

      27-02-2004 American Home Insurance v. Camions Maska Inc.

      Fire/subrogation: American Home (represented by Louis Brien) sued Maska for $104,518.68$ following a fire in the truck of its insured. Action granted. Complete text

    • 09-02-2004 Matthieu v. Fonds d'Assurance Responsabilité du Barreau
    • Close

      09-02-2004 Matthieu v. Fonds d'Assurance Responsabilité du Barreau

      Procedure: In this case, the Fonds (represented by Louis-Philippe Cartier), obtained a judgment re-affirming the principle that it is not necessary to obtain prior permission of the Court to institute a forced intervention. Complete text

    • 23-01-2004 Laflamme v. Fonds d'Assurance Responsabilité du Barreau
    • Close

      23-01-2004 Laflamme v. Fonds d'Assurance Responsabilité du Barreau

      Professional liability: Action by Laflamme against the Insurer (represented by Philippe Lelarge) of her former attorney, Me Gaétan Desnoyers, who had claimed to have instituted an action in Plaintiff's name without in fact doing so. The action was dismissed as the recourse would have failed in any event. Discussion of the wear and tear exclusion. Complete text

    • 05-01-2004 Denis Desjardins v. Station de la Vallée St-Sauveur (1996)
    • Close

      05-01-2004 Denis Desjardins v. Station de la Vallée St-Sauveur (1996)

      Ski liability: The Plaintiff instituted an action against a ski centre (represented by Claude Laporte) following a collision with an hydrant used to manufacture snow. Overview of the principles in similar cases. Action dismissed. Complete text

  • 2003
    • 24-10-2003 Lombard Canada Assurance v. Coffrages de L'Estrie
    • Close

      24-10-2003 Lombard Canada Assurance v. Coffrages de L'Estrie

      Fire: Subrogation recourse of Lombard in the amount of $277,000.00 and of Lloyd's for $41,000.00 (represented by Philippe Lelarge) following a fire which occurred during renovations to a building. Action granted. Complete text

    • 26-09-2003 The Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company of Canada et al v. Manac / Nortex et al
    • Close

      26-09-2003 The Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company of Canada et al v. Manac / Nortex et al

      Product liability: BI&I (represented by Philippe Lelarge, Benoît Chartier and Claude Laporte) sued Manac with respect to a wall covering product which was held out to be inflammable. The Court (after a trial of seven months) came to the conclusion that the product greatly contributed to the destruction of the PrimaViande plant which was insured by BI&I. The action was granted for $8,425,000.00 (which, with interest, represents an amount of more than $20,000,000.00). Complete text

    • 04-07-2003 ABB inc. et Alstom Canada Inc. v. Gan Canada Ins. Co.
    • Close

      04-07-2003 ABB inc. et Alstom Canada Inc. v. Gan Canada Ins. Co.

      Coverage: Legal proceedings for $17,996,353 by Domtar against Alstom (formerly Combustion Engineering) following leaks on a Superheater forming part of a Recovery Boiler designed, manufactured and installed by Alstom at Domtar's plant in Windsor, Quebec. Domtar was claming for temporary repairs, replacement of the Superheater and business interruption during the stoppage of operations. In a separate action, but which was joined for trial, Alstom requested reimbursement of the defence costs and the amount of any condemnation from Gan (represented by Ron Silverson and François Joubert)which had issued a 'Wrap-Up' Liability Insurance Policy. Judge Hilton, then of the Superior Court, maintained Domtar's Principal Action for $13,366,583, but dismissed Alstom's action against Gan. Judge Hilton concluded that, by its nature, the 'Wrap-Up' Policy issued by Gan only applies to the construction contract and Alstom's activities on the construction site and did not apply to the contract relating to the design and manufacture of the Superheater in the plant. Since Domtar's action was for the faulty design of the Superheater, Judge Hilton declared that Gan's Policy was not applicable and dismissed Alstom's action. Full text

    • 20-05-2003 Freins 3A Inc. v. CGU Cie d'Assurance and Lombard du Canada
    • Close

      20-05-2003 Freins 3A Inc. v. CGU Cie d'Assurance and Lombard du Canada

      Coverage: Determination of which insurer, CGU or Lombard (represented by François Joubert), had to take up the defence of the Plaintiff. Rules of interpretation. Complete text

    • 25-02-2003 Succession Claude Philippe v. Desjardins
    • Close

      25-02-2003 Succession Claude Philippe v. Desjardins

      Liability: Claim against the Defendant (represented by Antoine St-Germain and Louis-Philippe Cartier) following carbon monoxide poisoning on the work site. Care and control of heating equipment. Warnings. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 20-02-2003 Claude Forget v. Mont Sutton Inc.
    • Close

      20-02-2003 Claude Forget v. Mont Sutton Inc.

      Sports liability: The Plaintiff sued Sutton (represented by Claude Laporte) following injury suffered while getting off a chairlift. No fault was demonstrated. The Court reiterated the theory of acceptance of risk. Action dismissed.

  • 2002
    • 05-11-2002 George Lamontagne v. Timex Realty Co. v. W&P Plow-Away Services
    • Close

      05-11-2002 George Lamontagne v. Timex Realty Co. v. W&P Plow-Away Services

      Fall/snow removal contract: Claim of Lamontagne against Timex for injuries and warranty action of Timex against Plow-Away (represented by Antoine St-Germain) based on a snow removal contract. Overview of the applicable principles by Madame Justice St-Pierre. The two actions were dismissed. Complete text

    • 23-10-2002 General Accident Insurance v. Kleen-Tek v. Kingsway Insurance Co
    • Close

      23-10-2002 General Accident Insurance v. Kleen-Tek v. Kingsway Insurance Co

      Coverage: Subrogation action of General Accident against Kleen-Tek following removal of snow from a roof after the 1998 ice storm. Warranty action of Kleen-Tek against its insurer (represented by Philippe Lelarge. Exclusions. Actions dismissed. Complete text

    • 17-07-2002 Optimum Assurance Agricole v. Jacques Fauteux
    • Close

      17-07-2002 Optimum Assurance Agricole v. Jacques Fauteux

      Fire: Claim of Optimum against Fauteux (represented by Antoine St-Germain) for a fire immediately following the delivery of woodchips. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 20-02-2002 Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. of Canada c.Manac Inc
    • Close

      20-02-2002 Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. of Canada c.Manac Inc

      Procédure/Intervention: Requête en intervention conservatoire de la Zurich à titre d'assureur excédentaire, prétendant qu'elle a un intérêt pécunier, puisqu'elle risque devoir verser un montant important. Selon le tribunal, cet intérêt ne correspond pas à l'intérêt exigé par l'art. 212 C.p.c. Zurich n'a en outre aucune obligation de défendre son assurée. Requête rejetée. Texte complet.

    • 18-02-2002 Soprema v. Gerling Globale Compagnie d'Assurances Générales
    • Close

      18-02-2002 Soprema v. Gerling Globale Compagnie d'Assurances Générales

      Coverage: Claim of Soprema against Gerling (represented by Ronald Silverson) for damages arising during the ice storm of 1998. Exclusions. Action dismissed. Complete text

  • ...
    • 24-10-2001 Wylma Jacobs Migikovsky v. Holt Renfrew
    • Close

      24-10-2001 Wylma Jacobs Migikovsky v. Holt Renfrew

      Bodily injuries: Action of the Plaintiff following a fall in the store of the Defendant (represented by Louis Brien). Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 24-05-2001 Reliance Construction Co. v. Commerce and Industry (Appeal)
    • Close

      24-05-2001 Reliance Construction Co. v. Commerce and Industry (Appeal)

      Construction: Decision of the Court of Appeal maintaining the subrogation recourse (which had been granted in 1997 by the Superior Court) of Commerce and Industry (represented by Philippe Lelarge) following water infiltration problems in a recently constructed building.The judment raises the issue of the intensity of a builder's obligation, as well as when a contractual fault can serve as a basis for an extra-contractual fault. Complete text

    • 14-05-2001 Ecclesiastical insurance c. CGU co. d'assurance du Canada
    • Close

      14-05-2001 Ecclesiastical insurance c. CGU co. d'assurance du Canada

      Subrogation: Requête en irrecevabilité de CGU contre le recours en subrogation de Ecclesiatical (représentée par Ron Silverson)suite à l'incendie d'un immeuble, au motif que l'assurée de cette dernière, propriétaire de l'immeuble, recevait un montant de son locataire assurée par CGU, en regard des primes d'assurance payées . Étude de la jurisprudence pertinente. Requête rejetée.Texte complet.

    • 14-02-2001 Oppenheim (Lloyd's) c. Mercedes-Benz
    • Close

      14-02-2001 Oppenheim (Lloyd's) c. Mercedes-Benz

      Défauts cachés/Fardeau de preuve: Suite à l'incendie d'un véhicule récent, Lloyd's (représenté par Philippe Lelarge)a intenté un recours en subrogation contre Mercedes-Benz.La Cour d'Appel, renversant le jugement de 1 ère instance, conclut que le fardeau de preuve incombe au fabricant de démontrer pourquoi il n'est pas responsable de la perte, à défaut de quoi, il devra succomber. Appel acceuilli.Texte complet.

    • 03-02-2000 Oppenheim c. Chubb Security Canada et Sécurité Sélect
    • Close

      03-02-2000 Oppenheim c. Chubb Security Canada et Sécurité Sélect

      Système d'alarme: Réclamation suite au vol de pièces électroniques dans un local protégé par un système d'alarme et relié à une centrale. Envoi d'un gardien de sécurité de Sécurité Sélect (représentée par Philippe Lelarge). Obligation des divers intervenants.Action rejetée. Texte complet.

    • 10-01-1998 Cigna Assurance v. Catlen Transport
    • Close

      10-01-1998 Cigna Assurance v. Catlen Transport

      Transport: Motion to Dismiss of Catlen and others against the subrogation action of Cigna (represented by Philippe Lelarge) on the grounds that the statutory notice required under Article 2050 C.C.Q. had not been given. According to the Court, the sending of invoices for the stolen merchandise could avail as such notice. Motion dismissed (the action was subsequently granted). Complete text

    • 05-04-1998 Shannon Sullivan v. Camp Carowanis (Appeal)
    • Close

      05-04-1998 Shannon Sullivan v. Camp Carowanis (Appeal)

      Bodily injuries: Decision of the Court of Appeal maintaining the judgment of the Superior Court which dismissed the action of the Plaintiff for $4,000,000.00 against the Camp (represented by Philippe Lelarge) following a diving accident which had rendered the Plaintiff paraplegic. Complete text

    • 27-11-1997 Rocheleau v. Downs
    • Close

      27-11-1997 Rocheleau v. Downs

      Professional liability: Claim of Messrs. Rocheleau, father and son, against their former attorney, Me Downs (represented by Philippe Lelarge) with respect to a zoning claim. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 18-11-1997 Commerce & Industry v. Petro-Canada
    • Close

      18-11-1997 Commerce & Industry v. Petro-Canada

      Subrogation: Claim of Commerce & Industry (represented by Michael Goodhue) for damages suffered by its insured Polysar following an interruption of electrical current. The Court concluded that Polysar did not have to provide for emergency measures in advance. Action granted for $1,320,000.00. Complete text

    • 25-02-1997 Shannon Sullivan v. Camp Carowanis
    • Close

      25-02-1997 Shannon Sullivan v. Camp Carowanis

      Bodily injuries: Claim against Camp Carowanis (represented by Philippe Lelarge) of a young camper who became paraplegic following a diving accident. Action dismissed. Complete text

    • 22-01-1997 Bastien & Champagne c. André Cardin
    • Close

      22-01-1997 Bastien & Champagne c. André Cardin

      Responsabilité professionnelle: Action sur comptes contre Cardin et demande reconventionnelle en responsabilité professionnelle contre les 2 avocats. Les 2 demandes sont rejetées. Texte complet

    • 15-05-1991 Commercial Union c. Nacan Products
    • Close

      15-05-1991 Commercial Union c. Nacan Products

      Preuve: Notes consultées par un représentant de Nacan représentée par (Claude Laporte) lors de son interrogatoire. Limites à ce qui doit être produit par le témoin. Texte complet